Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Proposal to add Wikipedia is not a Scoreboard

Proposal would be in relation to the idea that we want to keep Wikipedia "current and up-to-date". At least two sports projects I work with discourage live updating of scores. For most, it's about reliable sources. It's also about material being updated while a game or match is being played and then again once the event has ended. Could we codify this here after a discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, you want to ban live updates. That seems totally moot to me. Such a ban has little practical impact or value since most games are only 1 or 2 hours long. What is the point of reverting updates to articles for the short period a game is played, only to allow edits the second it is over? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my typographical error in your previous edit. I honestly didn't catch it.

To answer your question, there are many points to this. One is that the edit history is often filled-up over this. The second is that several companies block access to sport sites so that their workers focus on work rather than on following a sport. If employees find a loophole, it could find Wikipedia blocked while they only allow access to mirror sites that updated at off-work hours. That could also mean that we lose editors. The third is that there is consensus in the association football project, the ice hockey project and discussion seemed to indicate that there was consensus in other projects however there is no unified location for such a consensus. They have other reasons for not allowing updates until the event is over. As already stated, there may be multiple updates to articles that result in duplicated information, simply incorrect information and of course, there usually is not any reference for the data added mid-game. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support - we should not live-update scores of games, this should be discouraged. If reverting is the way to discourage filling the edit history with such ephemeral data, then c'est la vie.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I support in principle, but also find the argument moot. We can ask that an editor not live-update scores, but more often than not, this will happen after the game has ended so would have no practical benefit, except to perhaps ward such an editor off of similar actions the next day. As far as losing editors goes, one could argue that not explicitly forbidding such updates could also cost editors as such simple edits are most often done by new users, who might then develop into full-fledged editors. Resolute 16:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolute has the right idea - and it's more than just scores. If there is a fast moving event (for our purposes, happening on the minutes and hours), we should not be worried about being that up to date with things, knowing that waiting a day, we'll have all reliable sources, and avoid excessive edit wars and the like. And when we get to things like currently breaking events, by not rushing to fill in new details as soon as they are available avoids issues of misinformation that can be reported by news sources. I would actually considering adding this advice under NOT#NEWSPAPER - we want to be up-to-date, but this doesn't mean up-to-date-to-the-minute. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: We do not need a policy on this, and it is generally a bad idea to fill up policy with minutia, becasue it just leads to disrepect for policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, having editors break the consensus or guideline was the argument against taking a position or guideline against it in the past at the football project. Once a number of editors supported the position, it was very easy to monitor and we found that it was usually one or two anonymous editors per match and occasionally a new or infrequent editor. They were warned that it was unacceptable and the behaviour stopped. I was surprised to see it work as well as it did.

I later brought up the idea at the NHL play-off tournament and a few editors agreed. Their solution is to comment-out the scores and not even indicate that the games were in progress. A few editors disagreed at first but saw that it worked well. We have only had one recent editor go against that and once it was explained, they agreed to follow consensus.

As for loss of editors, that is a concern and I don't have metrics for that.

As for policy, that's not what I'm seeking. I'm looking for a guideline. As for disrespect for policy, that is usually dealt with by discussion and explaining consensus and cooperation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

? Except, this is a policy page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Then yes, we need the policy and we'll always have editors who ignore or are ignorant of any policy. The best we can do is, as a community, point the editors to the policy page for further reading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only is it completely impractical. It could scare off potential new editors if they are warned about something so unimportant as this. Filling up the edit history? How exactly is this even remotely a problem. Definitely should not be entrenched in a policy. I'd have to say I am surprised there is mention above that there is consensus about this at the hockey project because as far as I have been aware we have allowed it for games. We just don't update player statistics throughout the season. As for no references during the game, that isn't true at all. Any number of sports sites have up to the second box scores. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - see rationale at WP:LIVESCORES. It prevents over-enthusiastic editors making errors on articles, especially BLPs. GiantSnowman 17:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Wikipedia is not for livescoring, I have seen way to many times 3 edits/minute on some pages getting constantly updated (not worth it looking at page history, it is full), a lot of the edits incorrect braking syntax and so on. When this live updates is done on player articles, someone add a goal, within 5 minutes an other IP comes and add the same goal again and so on. We should always wait until matches are finished and results can be verified. An error that might occur is the the match gets interupted/aborted in which case goals already added might not be correct and should be removed, which never happens so we get incorrect info on BLP. Live updates, no thanks. QED237 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Suggested Change Under Wikipedia is not a newspaper, add "News ticker/live scoreboard - While Wikipedia prides itself on being able to provide up-to-date information on a breaking topic, such as natural or man-made disasters, sporting events, or live broadcasts of shows, there is no need to update to the minute on these stories. Rapid updating can result in many edit conflicts and other issues with contributions from others. Further, editors should wait to make sure that reliable sourcing can be used for the topic and avoid accidentally including rumors and misinformation that can come about from otherwise instant news reporting by the press. In some cases, it may be better to wait until after the major active of the breaking news has settled down to assess the story, sources, and approach that the article should be written in." --MASEM (t) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support this wording. The misinformation around early reports from Malaysia Airlines MH370 is a good example here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• i support clarification about Wikipedia not needing to be a "breaking news" and that during such events, waiting until there are multiple reliable sources that are not merely echo chamber repeating what other news outlets or blogs have stated would be a good thing. We do already have WP:EPHEMERAL. (I was actually disappointed that the proposal was not something aimed at the cruftian "scorecard" tables that plague the "reality show" pages recording every trivial bit of the competition, generally with garish color highlights) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • yeeeeah, those are a separate issue (the reality show stuff), at least at the level of detail some want to go. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Strong support. Per GS and others.Blethering Scot 19:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This kind of policy is for strong armed enforcers to threatening editors who are 99% contributing correct information. Rather than wasting time running around enforcing this kind of policy the enforcers should spend time on productive edits. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Does it matter? I tend to agree with Brudder Andrusha, but generally is changing these guidelines going to make any difference? The current situation as described is: IP editors will often update sports stats during a match/event, this is fronwned upon by various projects and some editors spend their time reversing them. The situation after amending this policy will be: IP editors will often change sports stats during a match/event. Some editors will spend time reversing them. I'm not saying live updating should be encurages or even allowed but it will make no difference to the reality of what happens. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It has made a difference. I can point to several articles where it has worked well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The enforcing and threatening worked well no doubt... But the edits that were added by someone who thinks that when the final whistle is blown they are especially privileged. I noticed that when the final whistle is blown how is that after a few milliseconds a sourced reference is available. Amazing! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose What does it matter if the material which will be acceptable in an hour's time, gets posted (and cited to an RS) before then? It may be a bit nerdy, jumping up to edit WP whenever a goal gets scored in a big match, but totally harmless. No point making up rules where none are needed. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Its more that pointless because it only creates tension between editors and admins who want to control who does what on WP. I can see if the edits were vandalism but in most cases its not. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose. As long as the edit is supported by reliable sources we should not be discouraging people making sure articles are up-to-date. While these edits should not be encouraged what we should be discouraging is people reverting them. The reversions are the completely unnecessary edits that are filling up edit histories, fostering edit conflicts and putting off users who may then go on to become productive editors. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • However, the point made is that in the minutes and hours after an event, what normally may be published by RS's could be wrong (as well documented by both the disappearance of MH370 and the Korean ferry capsizing. With the modern news cycle we need to balance being up-to-date and being verified, meaning in most cases we should wait a few hours to a day to let the normal media information cycle settle down before getting too eager to fill in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference between breaking news where there is doubt such as the two events that you mention and a sporting event which is being covered by many online affiliates that have interest in providing correct, accurate and up to the minute information. There is a group of individuals that considers such information only correct when an event in concluded. Interesting that Test Cricket can be updated - only at the intervals lunch, tea and day's break and not at the conclusion of the match (5 days after it started). Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For the scoreboard updating (not so much the play-by-play aspects), the way I see it is that you have no idea if your edit will be the final on for that period of play or the like. As such, live updating of the box score (or equivalent) is an exercise in futility, until the game event is over and the score won't change any more. It further doesn't hurt WP to be "wrong" for the few hours it takes for the game to be completed (people coming here to get up-to-the-minute scores instead of a site like cnnsi.com are mistaken on WP's purpose). Now, in a case where you have rounds or game divisions like once over cannot be affected, which like your Cricket example sounds like, or something like tennis sets, that's fine - history can't (or rarely can) be changed so documenting the then while it is fresh is fine. But editing up to the minute scores on an open scoring period (eg like in american football, the quarter's score) is just futile until the quarter's over. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Futile, perhaps, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong, doesn't justify prohibiting it and most certainly doesn't justify reverting it. While not being up-to-the-minute doesn't always harm Wikipedia, it equally doesn't harm Wikipedia when we are. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

the practice of not discouraging Wikipedia from attempting to be WP:BREAKINGNEWS does in fact harm Wikipedia. (if you can follow all of the triple negatives) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - we are talking a practice of rapid updates that shouldn't be done (more that one would be wasting their time doing that), but it's also not introducing "wrong" information and reversion is being bitey. Better to caution editors that immediate updates aren't needed than to reject otherwise correct edits. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's edits like this that make having a policy/guideline/whatever more and more essential with every passing day. GiantSnowman 16:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That reminds me of edits to this list List of most viewed YouTube videos which should need editing more than once a month but I've seen it edited daily. It's not harmful but it's also futile in the larger picture, and there's a balance to being up to date and wasting time. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You should be thankful that someone is going and updating such information. Or do you think that this kind of informative page is better - 2013–14 Notts County F.C. season. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • It appears that the update is incorrect and mid-play. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
      • If an edit is incorrect, then you should correct it. That an edit is mid-play is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
        • ...not for the many articles that have been updated incorrectly mid-play and nobody notices. GiantSnowman 11:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
          • That I disagree because in many instances someone follows up with a correct with a reference. In the areas where live edits are being made many editors notice. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Creating some language on a page somewhere that you shouldn't update mid-play isn't going to stop those edits or ensure that people notice when they are made. So this proposal helps nothing but potentially scares away new editors. The cost benefit of this just isn't good. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
            • If editors insist on adding incorrect/misleading information to articles then those are not the kind of editors we want. GiantSnowman 12:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Try some AGF. Not every mid-play edit is incorrect or misleading, not every edit that is incorrect or misleading is made mid-play and not every editor who makes either of these types of edit only makes that type of edit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
              • New editors who don't know conventions are not a bad thing. You talk to them and tell them that it is a good idea to wait. But you certainly don't make it policy that they can't. And you definitely don't bite them like you are suggesting. As Thryduulf mentions, not even remotely is every edit incorrect or misleading. I would argue that a very few of them are. I know in ice hockey articles we are generally very grateful that there is an army of IP editors that come and update the game stats on season articles so they get updated. It frees up the editing time of our more seasoned editors to work on prose for articles. And every so often we manage to convert one of those editors into a prose writer which is exactly the kind of editor we want. Ones who really love what they are writing about. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
                • The problem is less an issue with a sporting event where we have thousands/millions watching so that the edits are confirmed, but more a problem when it comes to things like breaking news. The missing MH370 or the Korean ferry are great examples where we should have waited to include sources (initial reports on MH370 made it sound they only lost contact and was not a serious event; similarly initial reports from the ferry capsize made it sound like they had a fairly orderly evacuation of the ship when now more than half have died). The issue of rapid editing is one that is less significant on some things but more on others, so the same policy should apply. But again, this is not meant to revert rapid edits if they are otherwise correct, but to remind people that we are not a news ticker and need not be exact up to the minute, so it fits properly in NOT. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • Yes, however that isn't what this proposal is about. This proposal is specifically about sports scores. (aka Wikipedia is not a Scoreboard) What you are talking about is already in the page at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper in point #1. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • I'm going off my text in "Suggested Change" above, since while the scoreboard issue is more benign symptom of rapid-fire editing, it's the impact on other parts that should be addressed. NOT#NEWSPAPER does not cover this idea, or more specifically the "race to be first" nature, which can be both futile (even if right) and mistaken. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
            • We have shown editors consensus that they "shouldn't update mid-play" and that did stop them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Right, and my opinion is that as long as the edits are not wrong there isn't an issue. Its just a best practice at the moment. Turning it into a must do policy creates more issues than it solves. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
              • There has never been a consensus that "shouldn't update mid-play". It has been acted upon by a select few (with admin reinforcement) who patrol heavily viewed and updated sporting events (in particular soccer matches associated with UEFA/FIFA) and revert constantly at first then with threats of retribution. All this is counterproductive because in what I've seen even from IP editors is that the updates are in goodwill and mostly correct with many possible references that confirm those edits. This push for policy is for more heavy handed action by a select few who want control. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support. I actually would extend this to all content. It's generally not possible to take a dispassionate, encyclopedic view of current events. Our content would be much more stable and useful if we enforced that not only does content need to be reliably sourced, it needs to be sourced to something that was published some time ago: one or two years, perhaps. That would get rid of much of the obsession with updating pop star articles to reflect the boyfriend of the day, music articles to attempt to document the moment-by-moment fluctuation on the charts, and make WP:NOT#NEWS unnecessary.—Kww(talk) 15:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Enacting that would be a fabulous way of cutting off your nose to spite your face - up to date encyclopaedically-written information is exactly what a significant proportion of people visit Wikipedia for. You may not see value in popular culture articles, but that is just your personal bias and they are exactly as encyclopaedic as subjects like evolutionary biology. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How so? The primary locations where this is a problem is large, public events. Scores are not encyclopedic, they're historic and should only be updated when they have passed into history. Popular culture has other outlets for current scores and Wikipedia shouldn't be one of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Ludicrious. Yet when you have pages of results (scores) from the tournaments that were held before yesterday which are well documented you're now saying that they don't have a place in WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Just because you don't like sports scores or because somewhere else does it better doesn't mean we shouldn't. There are places that do everything we do better. There are other outlets for everything we do here. As for they should only be updated when they pass into history. The minute a goal is scored its history in that it already happened so that is a bit of a silly argument. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Where are these supposedly ludicrous pages of results from tournaments that don't have a place in Wikipedia? There are tournaments that have referenced results, but when the scores are on live {tv|radio|web casts|etc.} they cannot be referenced. Imagine the worst case scenario: a team posts its results on twitter feeds. Each tweet would need to be referenced for each goal, infraction, etc. that is reported in the final version of the article. Why not a single reference that is official and posted after the end of play? As for assuming that I don't like scores because somewhere else does it better, that's nonsense. You're misinterpreting what I wrote. The minute a goal is scored it is history: give me a reference for that goal and you'll be done with it. See the first half of my argument. Just because you think we need up-to-the-minuted results for scores just because we can doesn't mean that we should, primarily because of the problems it causes, not because we can't do it as well as a new feed can. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Live on the internet with text updates they can be referenced. Play by play transmission with a wicket falling in a Test match or player scoreing a century in in the text scream. Please do not just limit this to soccer updates of when a goal is scored or when someone is sent off. Removing such an edit and reverting because you disagree with the time of insertion is preposterous. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
        • It is an extremely rare sport in today's world that doesn't have up to the minute scoring reports on hundreds of websites, finding a source is pretty much never going to be an issue. And if the sport/tournament doesn't have that kind of reporting, is it even likely to be notable enough to have an article in the first place? I don't think they need to be updated by the minute. As I said above I don't think its necessary. What I object to is forcing the non-updating. Putting it into policy is essentially condoning biting IP editors which I think is a huge no-no. I still can't see any problems that it is creating. I would note web/radio/tv newscasts are actually valid reliable sources so especially in your example the scores would be sourced. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Agreed! For the record its the edit wars and continual edit sparring with IP editors and admins who would be better off spent in editing in some productive manner. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Changed my position to strong oppose I don't believe live updating should necessarily be encouraged but it's obvious that some editors would use this change as a mandate to spend time reverting well intentioned edits and dishing out warnings and threats of blocks against newbies and non-conformists. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal: NOT#TICKER

(Bringing this out to discuss this idea specifically, not just to sports scores, also adding one bit) Under Wikipedia is not a newspaper, add "News ticker/live scoreboard - While Wikipedia prides itself on being able to provide up-to-date information on a breaking topic, such as natural or man-made disasters, sporting events, or live broadcasts of shows, there is no need to update to the minute on these stories. Rapid updating can result in many edit conflicts and other issues with contributions from others. Further, editors should wait to make sure that reliable sourcing can be used for the topic and avoid accidentally including rumors and misinformation that can come about from otherwise instant news reporting by the press. In some cases, it may be better to wait until after the major active of the breaking news has settled down to assess the story, sources, and approach that the article should be written in. Note that rapid updates that are otherwise factually correct should not be reverted, but should be a practice to be discouraged." --MASEM (t) 15:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is still a bit too strong for my liking. I think we should just explain the issues (edit conflicts, rumours) but not discourage factually correct edits. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem is trivial updates during a short event, e.g. the score in a football game, which could be misleading. While the score may be factually correct as it stands, it may look final when it is in fact not. I would be in favour of banning such edits, but the proposal above is too broad for me, as it is possible to have very recent coverage on an earthquake, for example, based on reliable sources. BethNaught (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So banning edits on the first day of Golf Tournament or on the first day of a Test Cricket match is the way to do??? Surely you jest? More so the revertion to a blank entry is IMO misleading. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If the partially-completed result could be misleading I think it should be removed. There certainly is no need to have scores for a golf tournament until after it has finished, though "ban" is perhaps too strong a word. However I do not see how not giving no score at all is misleading? BethNaught (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It makes it look like it hasn't happened yet. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How can an event that be in progress when referenced sites are acknowledging certain happenings in that particular event? No score to me means several possibilities. That the event has not started - or cancelled - or postponed - or delayed and with the current arm wrestling the admins are doing as in progress as well. WP editors should have the go ahead an perform edits accordingly. During events there are templates which are placed on the page to indicated that many edits are happening. Are all these edits done with reference? Sometimes yes sometimes no. But is revertion by head strong admins really the solution? IMO - No way!Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A few things:

1. There are no references during these score updates! Don't you not understand basic English?
2. I notice that those who are requesting that scores not be updated are the editors I've seen who maintain the scores with references and accurate facts once play has ended. Those who want edit-as-soon-as-possible are nowhere to be seen when results and player articles are being updated and maintained after-the-fact.

Perhaps we need some basic understanding of the issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I understand exactly why you want this as policy and I oppose it.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brudder Andrusha. I too understand the motivation for the proposal, and I fundamentally disagree with it for the reasons outlined by myself several others already. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying there are no references but that isn't even remotely true. There are many many many sources for sports scores live. Either you are very unaware or you are being disingenuous. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

To avoid the problem of people thinking an event has not started, but not having pointless live scores which may also be misleading, would anything like an {{event in progress}} template be helpful? As for sources for live sports scores, yes you could reference them but then they may imminently change, invalidating the material on WP. What's the point in playing catch up? BethNaught (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

By that logic the material on WP is invalid whether it is being updated live or not. If it is being updated live, then the new information will be added as soon as it is supported by reliable sources - as long as they aren't edit conflicted by someone else reverting to a factually incorrect version of the article. Any concerns about validity can easily be resolved by noting the time of the score, e.g. 1-0 after 12 minutes; 146/3 after 31 overs. In the unlikely even that the article isn't subsequently updated, that will remain verifiably correct even if the opposition equalised in the 13th minute or the fielding team took a hattrick in the 32nd over. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you believe this kind of material is suitable for an encyclopedia. Live sports scores are completely irrelevant to the project.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well believe me that with the FIFA World Cup coming up in a few weeks there will be many folks going to WP as their first source of information - and it better be up to date. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel we have an obligation to be a real-time sports feed. We most certainly are not a real-time sports feed.—Kww(talk) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And I don't understand how someone expects a page like this - 2014 FIFA World Cup Group D to remain static when there are many in world knows whats happening. I'm obligated not to wear a paper bag on my head and many believe WP should not either. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mean up-to-the-second, put on a paper bag because whether it's edit conflicts or reverting of misinformation on current news stories, Wikipedia is not the place to go. If you want breaking news you have news sources and even Twitter because that last I checked, Wikipedia:NOTNEWS is still in effect and "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories". That's what we're arguing for here.

None of the World Cup of football group articles will remain static. They will be updated once there is full-time whistle and a reliable source to support the scores, cards, substitutions, man-of-the-match and attendance information. Why it should be updated before that's available is beyond me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Several folks have already pointed out that reliable sources are available through the event. Its easy to understand why folks like you want to restrict access only to the privileged few. You seem to think that you are better at providing the information for WP than others and I don't think you or anyone should institute policy to restrict editors to come and contribute to WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No one is suggesting editing be restricted to "the privileged few". I can see why you don't understand the problem: you've created a scenario that makes no sense and you are objecting to that. Feel free to read the previous arguments and respond to them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I have been involved more than once with overexuberant admins who have denied others the enjoyment of contributing to WP with threats and revertion and then see them nicely go off and do the edits themselves gives me enough reason why I oppose your proposal to modify this policy. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Then report those admins and stop imposing your bad experiences on this request. Anons are welcome and always encouraged to edit once a source is provided. New editors are welcome to edit once a source is provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize we don't have a policy that requires a source immediately for all edits right? So no one has to wait to provide a source before they can edit. Or else the vast majority of edits on the wiki would have to be reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been misreading WP:RS all this time. A score in a game needs a RS. Apparently, you have not seen some of the score edits I've seen. Pissed-off fans of side A give them ten or even 100 goals during game play. Situations where goals are under review and finally end up being no goal, but the WP article is updated when the puck crosses the line by a fan who wants to will it into existence. There are many other situations that this sort of practical change would help avoid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it doesn't need a source. I said it doesn't need a source immediately added to the page. As mentioned sources exist in almost all cases for the edits and that is what matters. There is no requirement that every edit comes with a source at the same time it is made. Secondly pissed off fans giving their teams 10 or 100 goals is vandalism plain and simple and we have a policy for dealing with that already. As for a puck crossing a line, it is a goal until it is said otherwise, so again not an incorrect edit. Nothing here is an issue that isn't either already handled by existing policy or by another edit when the situation changes. Reverting correct edits just because the game isn't over is actually the bigger problem here. No edits that are factually correct should be reverted just because of when during a game they were added. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

To respond to many comments, there's two issues at play:

• First, we don't want people running to WP with fresh information that has not had a chance to solidify. This is less a problem with sporting events where once the play is made, it's "history", and more a problem with rapidly developing news stories. But the idea work across all cases, the only difference is the time scale to consider on which the solidity of the information is assured.
• Second, the act of rapid updating or updating too frequently for the medium is an exercise in futility. Even if it is a one character change to update a score, we need to emphasize to editors that their time is better spent on more productive edits. Again, for sports this is less a problem but when we talk about events or things that work over a much longer period of time, that can be more a problem. No one is going to fault us for being a reasonable amount of time "out-of-date"; results of sporting event don't need to be done at the ring of the final bell, there's zero expectation we would be that up to date. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"we need to emphasize to editors that their time is better spent on more productive edits" the same could be said of editors who insist on reverting updates made by well meaning editors who do amend player apps or a score during a game. If it's that big a problem just verify the updates at the end of the fixture and re-amend if there are any errors, which 99 times out of 100 there won't be. As I said earlier, changing this guideline will not stop drive-by IP editors making these changes, so is an exercise in futility and is potentially a move to try and make Wikipedia more beurocratic.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My updated language points out reverting rapid-fire edits that are otherwise correct (eg they would meet WP:V) is not an acceptable practice, either. And the issue with the futility of up-to-the-second updates is hand-in-hand with assuring the information is right. This is not meant to be anything blockable or bannable (unless the editors are purely disruptive which we already have mechanisms in place) but to assure editors that "it's okay we're not up-to-the-second correct", as an encyclopedia we should have an "incubation" time for new information to make sure it is correct and proper, hence why we're not a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I would hardly call these instances rapid fire editing. The editing is usually with a change in the event. Not all sporting events are the same. For instance my involvement with 2014 Kentucky Derby was far more cordial with other editors who were using sourced material to enhance the article. The race was a little over 2 minutes, yet the amount of editing was what you consider rapid fire. But of course that settled down. No need for admins to get involved with tuff policy of revertion or threats of banning anyone. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Again - we're not talking here about any bans or the like as long as the material is legitimately true. There is nothing at the core wrong with on-the-spot edits that requires any admin to get involved. It is a practice to be avoided, yes, more for the editor's own sake than WP as a whole. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the comments of individuals above, that is exactly what some are talking about. They don't want any current updates whether true or not. They seem to be under the impression that references don't exist for scores as they happen which isn't the case in most cases. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is one thing for sure : if something is in Policy, eventually people are going to be blocked for violating it, and some are going to be blocked for minor or occasional violations. That's the way it works around these parts these days. If it isn't the intent to make violating this proposal's changes to policy a blockable or bannable offense, then it probably shouldn't be in policy.
Personally, in-match score reports seem pointless to me (with possible exceptions like, for instance, daily summaries during a five-day cricket match), but I wouldn't want anybody blocked for it. I've also noticed that telling someone to go find something more productive to do is rarely productive in itself, and rarely changes anybody's actions. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already seen blocks by editors who are violating 3RR for this very reason.

I've seen articles locked because of edit warring over score updates. That's a pain.

I'm trying to avoid both of those situations, although the former may be more likely as time goes on.

I'm not familiar with five-day cricket matches, but that would be an obvious exception, but I assume that there would be a RS to reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Easiest way to stop edit warring over score updates is to stop reverting people when they make them. If the edit is factually correct then leave it there. The benefit of this is that A> we have current information and B> no other users are going to come along and update it in good faith because someone else already has. Thus no edit wars. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the issue and it's clear that you don't really want to understand it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not confuse disagreement with lack of understanding. You have explained several times why you think this is an issue that requires a policy, and we understand your opinion, but almost everyone disagrees with you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Walter would probably be happy enough if Brudder Andrusha and DJSasso would recognize that nearly everyone thinks the practice ranges from downright wrong to suboptimal, and is nothing to be endorsed or condoned, Thryduulf. The argument against encoding it in policy isn't that there is nothing wrong with the edits, it's that this kind of edit is usually associated with newbies that know no better and sufficiently harmless that being firm about it is generally counterproductive. Brudder Andrusha and DJSasso seem to be arguing that it's a good practice, and I don't think the discussion here can be read as endorsing that position.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't read that from this discussion at all. The opinions expressed range from that the practice of live updates is harmful to that practice being perfectly acceptable, with most people tending towards the acceptable end of the scale. A couple of people seem to think that reverting these edits is a good thing, but the majority opinion is clearly that this is not something that should be done - indeed I am not alone in thinking that it is the reversions which are the entirety of the problem here. There is certainly no way in which this discussion can be seen to endorse reverting factually correct edits on the grounds of the time they are made, let alone making such action a policy. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I have said a few times I don't see the point in doing the edits, but that reverting them once it is done is a bad thing. And that putting it into policy is a very bad thing. Like Thryduulf has said, the vast majority of people in this discussion have said the reverting of them once done is bad. At this point there is clearly no consensus that this could be made policy. The biggest problem with these edits is the reversions once they are made. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Walter as someone likes to say in alot of hockey discussions, It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, its that I disagree with what you are saying. I understand completely why you think its an issue, I just don't remotely think it is one. In fact I think its the people reverting factual edits that are the bigger problem. One that should probably be looked into. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose amending policy. I mostly agree with Masem feelings, but it is absolutely creeping bureaucracy to set this in policy. There is nothing wrong with updating live, it is just perhaps not optimal. Let's write an essay on the topic, if someone wishes, to point in case, and leave WP:NOT alone. This is quite a core policy, it cannot become a dump for everything which is not perfectly good editorial practice.--cyclopia^speak! 14:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• This really is a case of WP:BADIDEA in many ways. I would generally ignore a situation like this. If I saw it getting out of hand, I'd protect the article until the event was over.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• The live score updates are almost always made in good faith, and therefore do not qualify as vandalism or any other type of disruptive editing that would warrant page protection. And while I agree that Wikipedia is not intended to be a live scoreboard, the very nature of the project is such that we can't really prevent it from happening in certain high profile cases. No, it is not ideal, but banning people from such edits or projecting the pages over general dislike of the idea is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. People are going to live update the World Cup group stage articles. They are going to live update the next Super Bowl. Some of those IPs might stick around and become regular editors. Most won't. But either way, the problem is confined to a very limited set of pages and rarely causes any harm. Resolute 17:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Resolute's sentiments, except ... why is it not ideal, why is it a problem, why would we want to prevent WP articles being swiftly updated with the latest referenced encyclopaedic information? That's one of the beauties of WP, the fact that it is generally up-to-date with major news stories. Just today, I heard on the radio about the sudden resignation of a government minister in my part of the world, and after finding a reliable source raced to WP to be first to change his article from "is" to "was", but of course I was too late. LOL - better luck next time. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• That type of updating is fine, and part of the beauty of WP. But that's also because you had checked an RS before updating. This idea of "being first to update" often leads to people updating articles with unconfirmed rumors and immediately breaking news based on second-hand information that is shown later to be wrong, as well as trying to keep up with a rapidly moving even where if we wait a day or so, there would be no further changes and it would be much easier to edit. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "the very nature of the project is such that we can't really prevent it from happening in certain high profile cases". We can and we have prevented it from happening in last two years of Champions League tournament and finals play. We can and have prevented it from happening in the last three years of the Stanley Cup finals tournament. So, yes, we can prevent it from happening, and if we codify it here, it's even easier.

• The reality is that some sports violate editing guidelines (such as WP:OVERLINK, WP:INFOBOXFLAG and even WP:OPENPARA) all the time, but that doesn't prevent editors from attempting to fix articles using those guidelines and it didn't prevent those guidelines from being established in the first place. I'm not sure why a sensible policy can't also apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• You have prevented updates with threats and reverts. Bad experience with admins who want to enforce this kind of maligned policy is enough why I'm against it. There really seems to be enough folks from around all areas of WP who seem to think likewise. Just as well! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Sensible is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find it to be sensible, as someone else mentioned above, I think in this case the cure is worse than the disease. Codifying it is just asking for more trouble and over zealous editors getting people blocked for *gasp* adding correct information to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reso, all I can do is remphasize my statement:I would generally ignore a situation like this.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, sorry about that. I must have conflated two different posts into one and responded to what I had in my mind rather than what you wrote. Resolute 22:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on when the presentation of statistics may be excessive

Discussion at: RfC: When is the presentation of statistics, such as with Weather box and Climate chart, excessive?. This concerns use of {{Weather box}} and {{Climate chart}} in most settlement articles, down to small town and village level. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit to "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"

Yesterday, Jarble linked the words "it is not governed by statue" in the sentence "While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy,[5] it is not governed by statute:" to Wikipedia:Active sanctions (it was previously unlinked).[1]. i.e. changing:

While I can see the intention here, I'm not sure this is useful. Particularly I don't think that linking a phrase to something that directly contradicts it without explanation is good idea for this page (this isn't Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create).

I haven't reverted the edit as I'm not sure how widely my opinion is shared, but I would like to hear other people's views. Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit as it is not helpful to provide a link that would only generate confusion if clicked. The edit summary in the change was "Wikipedia is occasionally governed by statute, contrary to the wording of this section" which reveals that the link was not intended to be helpful. The statement "not governed by statute" is obviously correct, yet it is equally obvious that an online community that anyone can edit will have to defend itself from misuse—anyone who is surprised that people are sanctioned has not thought about the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: It appears that certain policies on Wikipedia are being actively enforced, including various ArbCom-imposed sanctions. Does this directly contradict the assertion that Wikipedia is "not governed by statute"? Jarble (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't contradict that, but that isn't what I was commenting on. My issue with your edit was the link was misleading - if there needs to be a link to the Active sanctions page (and I'm not convinced) then it should be done in a way that explains and does not mislead. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent change to the lead

The change to the lead made by this edit directly contradicts both the nutshell and NOTPAPER, which both say that WP:NOT has nothing to do with lack of resources. Moreover there is no evidence that we lack the resources to do the things prohibited by WP:NOT. The things prohibited by WP:NOT not only can be done, they have been done elsewhere, it is just that the community has decided that they should not be done. James500 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Quite exactly. The generalization that was made in that edit makes no sense. I reverted that.--cyclopia^speak! 13:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent change to INDISCRIMNATE

User:Nikkimaria is restoring a reverted change that has not received consensus with this edit. The last time this was discussed it was established that there was no consensus for any changes of this kind to INDISCRIMINATE. "Data" requires an explanation because it consists of "numerical or qualitative values" (McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms) that would be meaningless without an explanation. "Content" means something completely different, and it would be wholly undesirable to expand INDISCRIMINATE in the way proposed, if what that user has written is not actually gibberish, which it probably is. James500 (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Link to this discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It is right at the top of archive 46 under the heading of "Removal of link to WP:DISCRIMINATE". It was fairly clear that there was no consensus for the expansion of INDISCRIMINATE in any direction. James500 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That discussion does not support the interpretation that you propose. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not support the interpretation that you propose. Changes to policy should reflect consensus. At this moment there is no evidence that anyone supports your change other than you. Unless someone else pipes up in support of the change you have made, in a reasonable time, the policy should revert by default to its original stable version which had "data" in place of "content". James500 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, that discussion demonstrates an understanding of policy more in line with my wording; the "data" wording creates confusion, as demonstrated by you above. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. In any event, if there is consensus for what you propose, someone else will show up soon and say so. James500 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I reverted last Nikkimaria revert, since the last version is much better, Nikkimaria version is not consensual, and "data" does not seem to create any confusion. There are several problems in the last version by Nikkimaria but they are best discussed one by one.--cyclopia^speak! 13:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• On the contrary, James has already demonstrated the potential for confusion: his definition of "data" is not consistent with the first two points of IINFO, nor with the interpretation outlined in the discussion he cites. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The first two points of INDISCRIMINATE don't claim to have anything to do with data. James500 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC) The discussion that I cited didn't reach a consensus on the interpretation of INDISCRIMINATE. That is why I said there was no consensus. James500 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They don't have anything to do with data as you define it, that's the point. They refer to content requiring context and encyclopedic treatment. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "data" does not appear in either of those points. Nor does the passage that precedes them imply they refer to data. To put it another way, there is nothing in the wording of INDISCRIMINATE to suggest that the numbered criteria are meant to be examples of a general principle stated in the second sentence of the lead paragraph. In any event, I consider the general principle you propose to be unsatisfactory because "content" is obviously far to broad and would include Wikipedia content that requires no explanation.James500 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead paragraph introduces the four numbered points, as a lead is meant to do. Your interpretation is obviously far too narrow because it excludes material that does require context/explanation, such as that described by the three points that do not encompass "numerical or qualitative values". What content do you suggest requires no explanation? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. To me, INDISCRIMINATE appears to have been used as a dumping ground for miscellaneous prohibitions. I don't see any common thread between the "examples". I would split the section into several parts. The word "content" would include the full text of a Wikipedia article. Whilst our content should certainly contain explanations of various things, it does not itself need to be explained. That does not make sense as English. James500 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"content" makes sense within the context of the section; "data" as you define it does not. If you want to propose splitting the section, I suggest starting a new discussion for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Content" does not make sense in any context. "Data" does make sense because the next sentence does not begin with the word "therefore". There is no assertion that the numbered criteria have anything to do with the second sentence of the lead. The text does not say that. James500 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that "lead" means "introduction", right? "content" in this context refers to the material described in the four points - what word would you use for that? "data" is too narrow, as already explained. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would take the second sentence out of the lead and make it criteria number five. James500 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That wouldn't make sense: "Wikipedia articles should not be...data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"? We want context, and your proposal suggests the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would rephrase the sentence so that it does make sense. I am sorry if that wasn't clear. If I could not figure out how to rephrase it, I would leave it as it is, because rewriting policies for stylistic reasons, because some people unfortunately draw inferences from mere juxtaposition, is not particularly urgent. James500 (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Urgent enough, when stylistic ambiguity leads to misinterpretation or confusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED vs. WP:NOTFREESPEECH

According to these policies, Wikipedia imposes certain restrictions on freedom of speech, even though Wikipedia is not censored. Are any changes to these policies necessary, and is it possible for these policies to coexist without contradicting each other? Jarble (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not restricting anyone's free speech, since we're not preventing them from discussing their opinions elsewhere. We are limiting what they can say on the project that may be harmful (like BLP issues), but that's neither censoring or interfering with their free speech since the Foundation only controls what content is happening on WP. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED appears to be a misleading title, since Wikipedia's deletion policies specifically allow various types of censorship, including speedy deletion of various types of content by administrators.Jarble (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not censorship. We are not preventing you for speaking your mind elsewhere. There's just certain things we will not host. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be consistent with the usual definition of censorship, since content is actually being removed from Wikipedia according to various criteria. Jarble (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

But WP's removal of material doesn't prevent you from using any other website to post that information; we just don't want it posted here. Censorship would require us to be working with all online sites on a massive scale to prevent information from being posted, and that's certainly not what is happening. --MASEM (t)

No. Is this a trick question? Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, because both are talking about very different things. WP:NOTFREESPEECH focuses on user behavior and simply means that you can't say anything you want on Wikipedia. This ranges from hoaxes, soapboxing/advertising, personal attacks or other forms of harassment towards other users. WP:NOTCENSORED is strictly limited to article content. So long as the content is verifiable by a published, reliable source, isn't undue weight or original research, an otherwise meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards, it cannot be removed from an article on the bases that it is "dangerous", "offensive", or otherwise objectionable. —Farix (t | c) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite exactly. Mind you, there can be some instances of clash between the policies (e.g. in BLPs we sometimes do not include sourced information out of concerns of privacy for the BLP subject -that is, the information is dangerous/objectionable, and thus one could say we censor it). But on average the difference stands.--cyclopia^speak! 14:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Article talk discussion

Wikipedia is allowed general discussion on article talks, but suddenly only when you seen in the main article. --Allen ^Talk 03:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

‎WP:NOTCENSORED and diacritics

The only place I found this to fall through is in the case of spelling with or without diacritics. I'm not talking about titling, I'm talking content anywhere in an article. Once a title spelling is agreed upon by consensus (let's use a non-diacritic spelling for argument sake), we are "not allowed" to mention anywhere in the rest of the article any alternate diacritic spelling, no matter the amount of sourcing, no matter if the diacritic spelling is used 90% of the time. This is applied vice-versa also. I'm not saying this is Wikipedia's direct policy so it's easy for Wikipedia to stand back and say "we don't have anything like that in our policies", but through rfc's and guidelines Wikipedia indirectly supports it. It's a done deal... cannot be mentioned in any article. I assume if this pocket of excising exists then others like it might exists too that simply haven't been brought to our attention. So while Wikipedia proper may not censor, by allowing its editors and administrators complete freedom to do what they want, an article or broad spectrum of articles/topics may not contain all the info they could. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Again? Fyunck's oft-WP:CANVASSED conviction that spelling "foreign" tennis players' names with non basic fonts constitutes "censorship" of "their English names" (i.e. having Björn Borg is "censoring" the "English name" found on Wimbledon's wooden scoreboards) has been put to the test twice at WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 with WP:SNOW results both times. Spelling tennis players in line with every other bio on en.wp does not constitute "censorship". Fyunck, long past time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you still around here spreading more lies? Goodness. Please keep my name out of your incessant attacks as I don't want to go to administration yet again. That is not what was said so leave the personal jabs at home and go spread that manure somewhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA to accuse another editor of "spreading lies" is quite serious. But back to the issue, please stop taking this claim that WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 is "censorship" around wikipedia, you are wasting editor's time. It's evident that Users:Jarble, Masem, Cyclopia above are having a serious conversation and no one benefits from you bringing foreign tennis players umlauts into it........... please desist. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your lies and fabrications are serious to me... they always have been and always will be, so stop making them. I will never stop the claim of censorship on a blanket across-the-board ban on common spellings as rfc'd on "Tennisnames2." "Tennisnames" has no bearing on what was said. You are the one dragging my name into this and making it personal. Stop your ridiculousness and move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeeaaahh, the decision of editors to not include a diacritic-filled version of a name if the de-diacritic version is used is not an issue of censorship (though I do question that approach, I see no reason why the diacritic version can't be mentioned once in the lead sentence and then move on). --MASEM (t) 00:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Stealing a redirect

Not many people have used the WP:WINC redirect ... people generally use one of the 4 redirects listed in that section. Anyone mind if I steal it for Wikimedia North Carolina? (This wasn't my idea, btw, members have asked for it.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

the WINC shortcut only has about 10-some uses [2] so it would seem reasonable to reuse it for the NC project, as long as the above cases are relinked appropriately. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It gets almost no hits either [3] (3 in 90 days is indistinguishable from background noise), but a hatnote at the new target would be a good thing in case there are human users. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there some problem with WP:WMNC? VanIsaac_WS^cont 00:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes ... "Wikimedia" isn't a unanimous choice (I don't have a preference). Also, WMNC is unpronounceable as an acronym. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, we're going with "WONC". Sorry for the hubbub :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Crowdfunding References

Should there be a warning in the WP:NOTADVERTISING section about crowdfunding (Kickstarter and Indiegogo) since their use has become very prevalent? Talk:Kickstarter#Kickstarter_as_a_source_in_articles states that a reference to the crowdfunding webpage shouldn't be included in an article until AFTER the funding period had ended. Thoughts? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a rule, its one editor making a suggestion, having a brief discussion with few people, and then giving up on it. There is nothing wrong with referencing the page someone is mentioned is getting funding from. [4] Dream Focus 22:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

KS pages and the like should be treated as WP:SPS - they're fine as sources alongside third-party and secondary sources, but alone will appear promotional and primary, insufficient to support an article. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about them being used to establish the notability of an article. We're talking about articles mentioning they got funding from them, that something relevant that should be included in the article. Nothing wrong with linking to the primary source for the information. If we mention someone got a grant of money from the government, we can have a reference linking to official government webpage confirming that information. Same way with referencing an official announcement on a website for a notable award. Dream Focus 04:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a perfectly legit reason to use KS as long as other sources establish notability and/or importance. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really agree with Masem here, at least not without very strong qualifications. Kickstarter etc. can only be used to establish the fact of the funding request, and other similarly plain facts, such as the name of the person starting the project and its claimed nature. Otherwise the information there is as totally unreliable as any other attempt to raise money for a project: pure and unadulterated promotionalism. Their articles are written for the purposes of soliciting funding, and the importance of Kickstarter is because of the great potential success of this manner of fundraising. We should leave this field to them. I would normally remove any claims derived from material there that cannot be independently verified; it may or may not be accurate, but it at best it is very likely to be selective. I aagree it's convenient source for such material, but I see no reason why it should be trusted. (I know Kickstarter goes to some trouble to ensure the material is not fraudulent or the project non-existent, which is why it can be used for plain facts. I have less knowledge of its competitors. In particular, I see no reason to trust local fundraising sites for anything at all, even real existence of the material promoted. Further discussion really belongs at WT:RS, not here. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

KS pages are no different from press releases. They are primary sources, and written with promotion in mind. So they aren't good for notability, BLP-quality references, or the like, but they can be used in conjunction with secondary sources to back up some statements. Standard care and practice when dealing with SPS, and of course we should not be including all the details of such pages into articles as to make the articles seem promotional. Common case in point, say video game develops opt to fund a sequel to a successful game through KS; both the original and sequel are notable via other means, but the developers provide details about the original game that no other secondary source has given. As long as we have verification of the identity, there's no reason the KS page cannot be used as a source for these details. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a Social Network

I understand that the wikipedia is not a social network. But it may take some time for me to fully understand what the wiki is and what it isn't. Especially given that the other wikipedias I contribute to, apparently allow me to add comments that the wikipedians here would flag as 'social network' comments.

Also sometimes myself (and I bet some others) have the urge to leave those sorts of comments on related pages anyhow. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and the redirect

In terms of "unannounced" products, it is and has always been the general rule to not create an article, or even a section of an article that contains any "unannounced" product. This does not, and should not, be interpreted to include a redirect of the said product, it has been discussed in multiple reliable sources. I suggest that in the section titled "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" be amended to include this. In my interpretation, the line of that section that reads, Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable., already confirms this, but I suggest making it a bit more clear to the reader, so as not to have any major disruption.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a technocracy"?

I have been questioning usefulness of templates lately. Templates are supposed to be useful, non-abusive, and simple. I found some to be none of these. Somehow, template-fanatics oppose deletion on any kind, like one template that is transcluded in no more than three pages. (Three pages!!) People are expected to be computer scientists or engineers, especially on templates. Lately, Wikipedia is supposed to be readable to general readers and educational. It is free editing, but it also requires donations. Editors are also expected to be experienced and quick-learners on templates. Sometimes, learning unnecessary and complex templates is frustrating.

As for wikilinking, it is very simple, but sometimes not necessary, unless it is for readers who generally should learn more about one topic or another. And tables have been used for easy editing and great styling. But it consumes more bytes than words alone. Well... people are expected (in a common sense) to format headings, like == Level 2 ==, and to do other HTML codings.

Also, there have been AFDs, TFDs, and other deletion types. Moreover, there have been requested moves and move reviews, prompting us to question stability of Wikipedia. And... how long will libraries stay open, and what will happen to print and online sources? Online articles nowadays require fee for viewership. So should Wikipedia be technocracy? If not, shall there be a policy about technocracy? If not, essay? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is something I have been thinking about for a while. I've been registered on here for over six years now and as I've come to be acquainted with the site, this is one of the primary things that has bothered me, despite my ability to learn and understand second languages/code: users are expected to be 100% fluent in wikicode in order to edit here. You're right, by the way, it is basically rocket science, even though WP:Introduction claims "It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy." Having complex templates defeats the purpose of the site, which is the beautiful fact that anyone can edit. This should instantly be recognized as a kind of barrier to entry.

To elaborate on the title of this section: there exist tech-savvy users who take pride for one reason or another in being more Wiki-literate than others, and who prize convoluted templates and other features of Wiki markup over simplicity and streamlining. In order to keep our faltering numbers up, it should be a long-term goal of the project to trim not only such templates, but unnecessary and sometimes wordy policies, not to mention condense processes for such things as merging. However, there is also a cabal that exists primarily to write policy, and if it fails to address the many problems that are starting to become manifest, this project will succumb to being copied and/or replaced by its very nature. @FrankDev: I know you haven't been very active this year, but you might be interested in this conversation per your creation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a technocracy, and @Folantin and Geogre: for your comments left here. - SweetNightmares 00:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. While I was reading it, my brain clicked (well, my brain is sometimes forgetful when clicking). Are we suppose to use "cite" templates or simple formatting of references? DYK editors encourage "cite" templates because it seems "readable" to them. I couldn't even remember what styles they were, so I fortunately found them at "citation" article, like APA style and MLA style. I forgot the styles that I learned from colleges and high school, or am I not the only one forgetting them? --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

George Ho, of course you're supposed to use cite templates; you only need to remember (or look up again) a few parameter names (or use one of the various tools available to insert them for you), and the template will do all the rest. There is no reason at all to go research APA or MLA or Harvard referencing styles and try to get them right. WP has a hybrid style that's auto-generated by the template, and it's much easier to use becuase you can put its parameters in any order at all, while all the external citation style have to be done in a particular order with vary careful attention paid to style and punctuation. Why bother, other than to just be obstinate about learning to use a template? Furthermore, it's not mandatory that you use any citation style at all. You can just type out <ref>Jackson, Pat (2014) The Unlightable Being of Bareness, pp. 23-24. Muleshoe, Texas: Fatbottom Press</ref> and move on. Someone else, maybe even a bot will template-format it later. I spend much of my gnoming time cleaning up citations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If one man's skill surpasses another man's, would that be teamwork or competition... or free-willed editing without harmful intent? If the reference is not bare URL, why should references by re-stylized? --George Ho (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@SweetNightmares: Why do you feel that telling us about your feelings that complex templates are a barrier to entry, as a technical matter, also requires you to verbally attack an entire class of Wikipedians, maligning them as prideful not just experienced, obsessive of convolution over simplicity instead of simply able to handle simplicity? Is it difficult for you to criticize a system or its results without also scapegoating people and misrepresenting them as a short-sighted actual conspiracy, and it's also lording it over WP policy, too? (Remember at TfD when you said I was wrong to say that you are engaging in conspiracy theories?)

@SweetNightmares: Separately, to get at the non-antagonistic part of your post: Let's be realistic. Ever single activity on WP is performed by people volunteering to do it, and they generally volunteer to do what interests them. For some this is mostly writing new article, for others its improving existing ones to encyclopedic standards, for others its making the encyclopedia more visually interesting, or doing style and typo cleanup, or blocking vandals, or setting internal policies. All of these things are necessary, and you can force people to take interest in aspects of this project that are less interesting to them than others. I've said it before and will say it again: Those who say that some people spend too much time arguing over policy pages and seem like that's all they do here, are almost always people who spend way more time in policy arguments than they think they do or will admit (otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to even notice who is and isn't spending a lot of time on policy pages). Even the most active, most focused policy editors tend to spend 25% or less of their editing time in "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:" namespaces combined.

As for templates, you have absolutely no evidence that the complexity of some templates is a statistically significant factor in editor retention. If it were, we would have known this 10+ years ago. In reality, any of a dozen books on organization life cycles, along with knowledge that most of the important articles have already been written, and WP editing is not the hot Internet fad of the year it was almost a decade ago, can tell you why the editorial pool has dwindled. It's a patently false statement that "users are expected to be 100% fluent in wikicode in order to edit here". Rocket science? MediaWiki parser function code is some of the simplest code that actually does anything, anywhere. And no normal editor needs to ever touch it. They can simply go to the template's talk page and request changes. All they need to know if how to use templates, and if a template isn't properly documented, that's a template documentation problem to fix, not the sky falling down. If you can't be bothered with it, you can still edit. Other editors are apt to ask you to use templates when you add something that is normally done with a template, but no one will ever be blocked for adding content and not bothering with templates. Finally on this subtopic, not all barriers to entry are a bad thing; see WP:COMPETENCE.

On to the other stuff, like policies. Are you unaware that virtually everything in our policies and guidelines evolved into them over time to forestall disputes? This is actually also how internal corporate and university policies evolve, and game/sport rules, and national legal systems. It's how human beings operate. Why would WP be any different? How could it possibly be? The number of actual policies is actually quite low, and understanding the gist of them doesn't take long at all; you only need to drill down into the details if you need to something particular, like disambiguate an article title (see WT:AT policy), or account for differences between conflicting sources and their apparent reliability (see WP:V policy and WP:RS guidelines while avoiding WP:NOR problems like novel synthesis), etc. Style and behavioral guidelines, you'll pick up as you go along. The main, by far, problem in retaining new/recent editors is old hands being hostile to them, not technology. The main bastion of this hostility is questionable; some claim it's policy pages like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, others think it's insular, WP:OWNy wikiprojects. Truth be told, there's lots of improvement to be made everywhere on this score.

While I agree some processes should be "condensed" as you put it, the merge process is one of the simpler ones. What could be asier than putting a merge tag atop the "to" and "from" page and starting a ==Proposed merge== discussion at the talk page of the "to" page? That's trivially easy.

You and George both here seem to have a "Well, I'm dissatisfied, and the source of my unhappiness is... every possible thing I can think of about Wikipedia!" It's too unfocused to be useful and it's not a WT:NOT matter, really.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• The intricacies of wiki-code were supposed to be solved by the visual editor, but as you may recall it broke everything and caused a minor revolt when they tried implementing it. --erachima talk 01:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erachima: Lots of us saw that coming. It was one of those "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" misadventure. It might be fixable some day, but it's going to take a lot of work to insulate the underlying code from accidental changes. It's a very, very complex problem. As just one of a thousand examples, take this code:

It was named ''{{lang|es|Cazablanca}}'' ('White-house' in Spanish)

which renders as the following in browsers and in a visual, WYSIWYG editor:

It was named Cazablanca ('White-house' in Spanish)

How does a visual editing program preserve the language tagging when someone goes in to fix the z/s typo, but they delete "Cazablanca" first (which would also delete the language tag) then type in "Casa" where it was, instead of highlighting "Caza" and changing it to Casa? We can't presume the language tag shouldn't be removed, because someone may intend to remove the name and do something else there, e.g.:

It was named White-house ({{langx|es|Casablanca}})

(note the template change as well as the order change), which renders as:

It was named White-house (Spanish: Casablanca)

and they did this by first removing "Cazablanca" (and presumably its template markup and italicization along with it), then working on the rest of it manually. Problems like this with visual editors are not at all easily worked around. It's not because "Wikipedia is a technocracy" of course, but because we live in 2014, not 2514 with astoundingly awesome brainwave-reading software. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• @George Ho: Re: original post – To start with, I'll ask you essentially what I asked SweetNightmares (then get to your details): Why do you feel that telling us about your feelings that complex templates are a barrier to entry, as a technical matter, also requires you to verbally attack an entire class of Wikipedians, maligning them as "fanatics", and blatantly lying about their activities (e.g. that they "oppose deletion [of] any kind", when clearly WP:TFD and other deletion venues have plenty of "Delete" !votes and closures)? Is it difficult for you to criticize a system or its results without also scapegoating people and misrepresenting them as a technocratic conspirators?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Separately, to get at the non-antagonistic part of your post: Where do you get the idea that templates must be simple? Many are complex for a reason, because it's easier to have one template, the name of which people can remember, with basic functions people can remember, and many more detailed options people can look up only when the really need to, rather than a separate template for every possible specialty case. Name one template that is "abusive", and describe whom or what it is abusing and how, and where it got its magically anthropomorphic powers. Where do you get the idea that a template must be used a lot to be useful? This is usually the case with stand-alone templates, but is generally never the case with templates that are part of a series or set that is used often, in which some members are frequently used and some are not but necessary for completeness' sake (for various reasons, including because bots parsing them according to a list, e.g. of language codes, will choke if one goes missing because someone didn't think it was used enough. Later editors will naturally re-create any missing ones to patch the hole in the series, so deleting them is futile and WP:POINTy.

  "People are expected to be computer scientists or engineers, especially on templates" is a false statement; no one seriously believes that, and if it were true the entire project would have collapsed before it ever got off the ground. It is by its nature easier to learn WP for people with the ability to pick up nerdy editing skills, but that is true of any encyclopedia operation (the exact skills just differ because our online environment isn't the same as the one used by Encyclopaedia Britannica in its heyday, based on paper book and journal research, editing and revision slowly by post, manual typesetting and painstaking pre-press error correction, etc.

  WP having processes for deletion and page moving and other maintenance is not in any way "prompting us to question [the] stability of Wikipedia". Where on earth do you get that idea?

  "So should Wikipedia be technocracy? If not, shall there be a policy about technocracy? If not, essay?" Of course not, no, and feel free (respectively). For the essay, I would strongly suggest keeping it in user-space, which has more lax rules about content that is curmudgeonly and conflicts with standard practices and policies; you're willingness to verbally castigate entire classes of users for being more technical than you and not joining you in a luddite campaign, and your espoused belief that our entire template system is wrongheaded, along with everything else, don't bode well for survival of your essay in project-space. As with SweetNightmares's followup to you above, your missive here is wildly unfocused, and seems to just express a vague, diffuse unhappiness with everything Wikipedia does, from templates to moves to deletion to table formatting. It's too scatter-shot to come to any conclusion about other than this isn't material to add to WP:NOT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm only going to touch on this briefly, as it's absurd. Templates are easy to use when properly documented, documentation is sometimes lacking - feel free to improve it. Templates provide near zero barrier to entry because they do not have to be used. Heck, you can do things entirely in plain text and allow other, more "technical", editors do the wiki code/templates. I'd equate it to complaining about shoelaces because not everyone can tie a bow. The only topic of interest in this discussion is the one about why people are leaving - and I could write an essay about how wiki's become a bureaucracy, how OR/Synth is a policy for traditional encyclopedias and is ruining wikipedia, how the likelihood of meaningful content from new/returning/infrequent editors remaining is crazy low compared to frequent editors, how frequent editors have to justify little but expect perfection/justification for edits from others, how since returning ~80% of my time has been spent on everything but editing (in WP or talk), how I used to edit with 1 wiki tab (I have 53 wiki tabs & IRC wiki help open, only 1 tab is for editing), how consensus doesn't work when there's only 2-4 editors, how the some of the best editors are drown in projects/administrative/culling instead of creation/improvement/cleanup, etc... wasn't going to go on like that but there it is. Templates... they rock. Complicated to create at times but so much simpler for everyone to use to create consistency. I'm particularly proud of that one, 5 core display formats for distinct use cases, list support, grouping support, text to image with dynamic number overlay all in a crisp 3 parameter template. It was even future safe, new game came out all that needed to be done was upload a character image - no template updates needed. Used on 3.34% of pages (wikipedia equivalent of ~153,000 pages) shows how easily a simple template is adopted by those who could never code it (I only added it to fewer than 10 pages) JMJimmy (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should elaborate on how it's a barrier. I find myself striving to find some uber-specific template that I'll only ever use once all the time. It is, for things like lang-en-GB, usually a complete waste of time: for all those minutes I spend using WP's disorganized system looking for unused niche templates like that (or bickering about them, for that matter), I could be doing actual research and writing articles. It is frustrating and discouraging, especially when there is poor documentation or it gets formatted/used inappropriately and subsequently reverted. I seriously doubt that I am the only Wikipedian who is as anal retentive. Regarding @Masem:'s comment below, the only Wikicode that should be required by editors is <ref> tags, to be honest, and for Wiki tables, thankfully we have tools. - SweetNightmares 16:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There's lots of wikicode beyond just that, that you probably don't even think about. ":" and "*" in talk pages, "" and "'" for em and bold formatting, etc. This is above and beyond normal HTML markup. There is definitely a good # of exotic and obscure templates, but we never require the bulk of users to learn this. There are wikignomes, for example, that will handle the dialect templates if a new user doesn't. It would be nice if/when the visual editor comes back to have a drop-down to add the more commonly used ones (including the citation templates), but we're still not going to be able to document every single template this way. That's fine. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of languages that a bot could automate the addition of the template, the languages it can't identify with accuracy could be flagged in some fashion by the bot. If that's too complicated/resource intensive for a bot a 3rd party tool could make a list of pages with untemplated foreign terms so anyone with knowledge of the template can do the addition. In the mean time, if you don't want to look up/learn "exotic" templates, don't. Someone who enjoys that soft of thing will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. Someone with the goal of completeness cannot just turn a blind eye and do things grandma's way. In any case, with the concerned templates that sparked this debate, are they really even necessary? lang-en-GB? lang-en-CA? It's not like British or Canadian English is completely unintelligible; in fact, "Canadian English" is barely even defined. What could possibly be the use for such a template? It's just overcategorization and making Wikipedia harder. - SweetNightmares 23:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

At some point we could have a feature that says "please format the article in this dialect" , and so when these templates are used, metadata on language can be used to provide the correct alternate name. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that it seems hypocritical about having to learn how to use templates, when you say "well, everyone is familiar with wikicode, right?" At some point, every editor had to learn that, including the more complicated things like wiki tables, so that argument is bogus. Now, on the number of possibly useful templates that one might need to learn, yeah, that can be a bit overwhelming but the few I use on a regular basis become second nature after repeated uses. There's no technology-magic isolating editors from understand the use of templates just as there is nothing to isolate editors how to learn wikicode. (Now, writing templates, that's a whole new story...) --MASEM (t) 13:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The only templates I use regularly are quotation and cite xxx. Tables are effectively a template. That said, you don't need to learn any wiki code. Some users just do basic copy edits and ignore all the wiki code. Sure it helps if you learn, but really if you go to a random article, hit history and skim back through the history you'll find that the majority of edits do not contain any wiki code or very minimal. As to writing templates, a basic template is trivial to write - honestly the biggest problem with writing them is the fact that there's no "code view" to allow you to toggle between compacted and human readable. Such things exist but I've not found with a bug free parser. JMJimmy (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

My point is that learning how to implement a template is no more difficult than learning how to write wikicode, but it does take time and persistence to memorize the common ones. That's not a technological barrier, however. We should try to help editors find and implement the more useful templates just as the editor helps with things like special HTML characters and markup, but there's no reason to remove their use on the claim they favor the technocrats over average editors. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving on from templates, I'm becoming infuriated by use of dashes. Right now, this dash (–) is mandatory for titles that have year durations (2014–15 United States network television schedule) or two sovereign states (United Kingdom–United States relations). At least that dash (-) is useful for titles of biographies or nationalities, like Scotch-Irish American. Still, I could not even type in this dash (–), and I'm not a fan of redirects. I'm a fan of typing exact titles. However, other discussions related to dashes have been previously done, but they have not progressed much. I hope this isn't a recycled rehash of dash battles. Actually, I'm using dashes as an example of technocracy. --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There is always the normal html way via html entities, – and — (– and — respectively). Both are also in the "insert" line on the editor box along with other common characters that require extra strokes to enter. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To whom shall we teach these html entities? Shall which group remember them? I always knew how to type them; I don't use them very often in body articles and search boxes. --George Ho (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is expected that if you are going to participate at WP, you learn the fundamentals of how the edit box works on your own; we cannot hand-hold at that level. We do provide as much help (eg there is a "Help" right there above the box, there's a menu of "insert" shortcuts below the box, etc.), but to have to expect that we have to teach editors how HTML works is far below a reasonable expectation. Nor is learning the basics of HTML difficult. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

See also

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere

George Ho has been raising related issues in a number of different forums. Participants here may wish to synch their input at these other related threads (most of which deal with {{lang-xx-YY}} templates in particular, while the one at WT:NOT is more general):

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Template:Lang-en-GB and four other TfDs on the same page
• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#"Wikipedia is not a technocracy"?
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Using "lang-x" template or simple wikilinking and formatting
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Template:lang-de/sandbox
• Template talk:Lang-de#template:lang-de-AT

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, I've written him off for forum-shopping already. I simply wanted to point out to him that A. the Foundation is attempting to work on this and B. "attempting" is as far as anyone's gotten yet. --erachima talk 07:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

fr-wiki has both "Visual Editor" and "Modify the code" at the top of any given page. Why not take that route? Surely the technocrats have nothing to do with that... - SweetNightmares 16:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The smaller wikis don't have the weight en. can throw around, so it's harder for them to countermand the Foundation's will. Though on the practical side they also tend not to be citation junkies, which makes it a lot easier to actually work in Visual there.

That latter point speaks to the largest "technocratic" issue though: the number one thing we do that raises the bar for entry in editing is demand explicit references for everything. Unless we're willing to give that up and go back to the standards of ~2006, bickering over stuff like template formatting as a barrier is just a bikeshed debate. --erachima talk 16:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, I appreciate the reply. Although I disagree that smaller wikis aren't citation junkies. They might not get the same amount of traffic or anything, making it harder to patrol, but I would say that frwiki (can't speak to others) has fairly high standards. In fact their scheme is even more complex, involving things like underlines to isolate exactly what needs referencing and so on. In any case, surely there is some way to integrate the current citation form into the visual editor so as to improve accessibility? I'm not all up-to-speed on WMF's position here, but I mean just look at it! - SweetNightmares 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Applying rules judiciously

I think that there should be some clarification in the What Wikipedia is not article to instruct users on how to apply rules in a judicious manner. Some users may consider a WP:NOT rule as a one-size-fits-all application, while others may take deeper consideration as to whether the rule should be applied or whether a particular section or paragraph that the user considers applying a rule actually has merit to the article and should remain as is. By informing Wikipedians as to how to properly judge whether a WP:NOT rule applies to an article, it could alleviate some conflicts with the article's structure that may occur between users. TVtonightOKC (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, this page is like nectar for the pedants. --Cypherzero0 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2014

Minor grammar error under § Wikipedia is not a democracy: “but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster discussion” either is missing a comma (after “foster”) or has an unneeded comma. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

done Meters (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Profanity censoring

@Lucas Thoms: Does the offensive/profanity language and offensive material on Wikipedia can be censored on articles and pages according to WP:CENSORED? --Allen ^talk 03:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we do not censor profanity at all if it is part of the original source material. Editors are asked to avoid using that in talk page discussions, or to introduce it into article text if not necessary. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. We don't censor profanity but we do remove it. There is a difference. To censor it means to have a mandate to delete or circumvent it just because it is indecent. But we do remove it because their use is in violation of WP:NPOV. Inclusion of sentiments, passing judgment and WP:PEACOCK are instances of profanity's flaws. Also, an editor's use of profanity on his or her own volition is a violation of WP:CIVIL.

So, to sum up, rest assured that if a politician described another politician as a "cheap whore" and this exact incivility triggered the World War 3, there is nothing to stop you from writing it in the appropriate article.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if the profanity on articles is allowed that way, it's used by WP:NOTCENSORED. But not in their user and talk pages. --Allen ^talk 22:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. Generally, apart from being profane, profanities have too much problems. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a specific example? There may be other reasons that material was remove that has nothing to do with it being profane or offensive (such as vandalism, bias, and etc.). —Farix (t | c) 18:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

On articles contains profanity and offensive material in there, we censor or do not censor that as an unnecessary problem of reading that. --Allen ^talk 00:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked for a specific example. Instead, i get a gibberish sentence that I can't make heads or tails of. —Farix (t | c) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary

Good morning.

We have had stackloads of redirects over at WP:RFD lately that essentially are better served by Interwiki links. (User:TheChampionMan1234 seems uncannily good at finding these). The usual consensus on those redirects has, I feel it fair to say, been to delete them. (A few go to retargets.) Would it be useful to state more explicitly at WP:NOT that Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary or phrasebook? Perhaps WP:NOTPHRASEBOOK or something? I know we have WP:DICDEF, and so on, but that is a bit more general: since these are redirects they are not really dictionary definitions, but just substitutes (in my view, subversions) for Interwiki links. I don't think, in general, they help non-English speakers. There are, of course, exceptions, and we have a fair few linguists at RfD so we tend to sort those out. It would just be nice to have a general policy.

I suggest as a draft phrasing of that policy, which is pretty much de facto at the moment over at RfD:

Wikipedia is not a phrasebook. Where articles exist in other languages, they are better served by Interwiki links to those languages. The Wikimedia software will automatically cross-reference all the languages. Where articles do not exist, redirects should not be added at English Wikipedia; doing so may inhibit readers' searching, or may discourage their creation on other Wikipedias (see WP:REDLINK).

Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've linked to here from WT:RFD#Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary (policy request). If there is a better place to discuss it, please let me know (or just move it!) Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. While this is true in general, I'm feeling that at the moment there is a push to treat every foreign language redirect as if it were created to make Wikipedia a translation dictionary, which is far from always the case. Any wording here must be clear that there are foreign language terms that should be included in Wikipedia as searching aids to English speakers (e.g. native names, embedded phrases, official names, original names, etc) rather than discouraging the lot. Thryduulf (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. That's what the {{R from alternate language}} series of templates are for. I don't know how to encompass that briefly. Just reading English as she is spoke, which I was aware of for many years but never got a copy. Still in print, apparently. Si Trew (talk)

Suggestion How about add a sentence at end:

"However, some foreign-language redirects are useful if the term is widely used by English speakers, or it refers to the official name of a well-known entity in its own language".

I don't think we need to qualify about embedded phrases, which are [[[de rigueur]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) anyway, in that we don't translate things in quotes (if must needs, we add a translation after the quote). We can't have every single "official" or "native" name. I'm suggesting a would be a policy/guideline but of course WP:IAR would come into play.

Perhaps it should not be at WP:NOT rather to be added to the guidelines at WP:RFD itself? Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• @SimonTrew:By the way, speaking of phrasebooks, it might be a good idea to mention phrasebooks on Wikivoyage. I started editing there (not the phrasebooks though) a while back. - TheChampionMan1234 07:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not aware of that project. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Second attempt.

Wikipedia is not a phrasebook. Where articles exist in other languages, they are better served by Interwiki links to those languages. The Wikimedia software will automatically cross-reference all the languages. Where English-language articles do not exist, redirects in other languages should not be added at English Wikipedia: doing so can discourage their creation and inhibit readers' searches. (See WP:FORRED.) But some foreign-language redirects are useful when the term is widely used by English speakers, especially if they refer to the native name of a well-known entity in its own language.

Any better? Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: @TheChampionMan1234: On reflection, perhaps we just add some kind of policy statement (with consensus of course) at WP:FORRED. I just felt, first, that is too wordy for most people to read, and secondly, a bit hard to find (well not hard but it is not an obvious term, to me). Since we are the redirect bunnies, perhaps we just make a redirect from WP:PHRASEBOOK to WP:FORRED and get back in our warren? We can then agree on some mods to that wording there, if you want? I felt that that guideline was not sufficiently prominent to many editors adding these Rs. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Also I wanted it worded so it is not specific to Rs, but to foreign-language articles generally (Unless it's changed, MOS contradicts itself on whether a redirect is an article, but I tend not to walk into that minefield). Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That wont work either, as it just reads as "Do not create any redirects where articles exist on other language wikipedias but do create redirects when..." - i.e. it reads as self contradictory. I think it's far too nuanced for any simple statement as there are equally many cases where such redirects are appropriate (e.g. there is no reason why we cannot or should not have redirects/links from the official native names of everything that has such (e.g. Luik, Lidje, Lüttich, Leodium, Luuk, Léck), native names that are not official are a little trickier to define (e.g. 百度 (Baidu) yes, 香港上海滙豐銀行有限公司 (The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) probably, 大熊猫 (giant panda) maybe, 可口可樂 (Coca Cola) probably not, 狼 (wolf) no). Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Third attempt.

Wikipedia is not a phrasebook. Where articles exist in other languages, they are better served by Interwiki links to those languages. Titles of articles (including redirects) in other languages should only be used if they serve English-speaking readers: not solely to serve speakers of other languages. See WP:FORRED. Mark redirects with a template such as {{R from alternate language}} when native and translated names differ significantly.

Are you really suggesting that an English-speaking reader will type 香港上海滙豐銀行有限公司 instead of HSBC? (Don't worry I know the history, my missus worked for them for several years.)Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No, "When titles of articles exist in other languages," but not in enWP, enWP is best served by translating those articles into English if they can meet our standards. When they do exist in enWP, interlanguage links should be made. (I note that Google and Bing are currently very good at finding nonEnglish WP articles if there is no English one.) This isn;t the problem you;re addressing, but the wording needs to address the actual problem. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Template:Excessive advocacy

Template:Excessive advocacy inveighs against "excessive advocacy" in an article, citing this policy. However, this policy does not limit the quantity of advocacy, only the neutrality of coverage of advocacy. If someone is notable primarily for engaging in advocacy, such as Martin Luther King, it is appropriate for the article to have large amounts of coverage of their advocacy (as indeed King's article does) - it is not disproportionate, because that is what their life in the public eye was about. We already have a template for "the neutrality of this article has been disputed" - we don't need another one specifically for non-neutral coverage of advocacy.--greenrd (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It's only used (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Excessive advocacy) at Casey William Hardison and a very quick look at that article makes me think it is not appropriate on that page. I'm one of those who think tags like this are rarely useful, so I'm not concerned that it might be deleted, and I agree with the comments above. However, I think you need to add an appropriate WP:PROD template to the page, presumably in the documentation section. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the bad choice of words in my section heading - I knew something like this would happen. WP:PROD is only for articles, so I can't use that. Templates for Discussion (i.e. Templates for Deletion) is not permitted to be used for templates that are associated with policies, so I can't use that either. I don't know how we would actually go about deleting the template if there was consensus to do so, unless a friendly administrator happened to see this discussion at its conclusion and did it for us. Anyway, full disclosure: I've removed the template from most of the pages it was on - you can see that in my recent contributions from yesterday (date may differ depending on your timezone of course).--greenrd (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this template should stay. If I recall correctly, I'm the one that added it to Casey William Hardison, and it's pretty applicable there. Other templates could apply, but lines like "In 2008 he helped found the Drug Equality Alliance, a non-profit organization working to secure equal rights and equal protections for all drug users." make this one particularly apt. Despite strongly supporting the Drug Equality Alliance et al., there's a lot of thinly veiled promotion in there, and I think this template captures it well. Exercisephys (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That may well be so, but there are other appropriate templates that can apply to cases like these, such as {{peacock}}, {{advert}} and perhaps also {{COI}}. My concern is that this template implies a reading of this guideline that simply isn't supported by the text of the guideline (it may have been when the template was created, I don't know).--greenrd (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Major change: Journalism -> Original reporting

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 use of WP:NOT#JOURNALISM has been imprecise and incorrect for years now, and I'm being bold in changing it instead to "original reporting."

The rationale -- journalism encompasses a much larger set of activities than just "news." The section "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is valid, but then making point #1 underneath it as "not journalism" is much too broad and contradicts accepted use of that term. Read what our own article journalism says, that it is the "gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience." This is a completely valid description of what Wikipedia does as an act of journalism -- it is a distillation and summarization of news and information for an audience, even though it is not originally reporting info. Therefore, I'm narrowing the section on "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" down to exactly why the sections was created in the first place -- to ensure Wikipedia is not original or a primary source of such news reports. I know this may be problematic for some legacy links to WP:NOT #JOURNALISM, but it's more important to be precise, accurate and consistent on our policy than to perpetuate an erroneous use of terminology. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've left WP:NOT#JOURNALISM in as a legacy anchor so it can still support old references. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I like that, but I don't know if the consensus agrees. It's neat and clever, but maybe we should regulate people's journalistic skills rather than discourage it. Shall I add the RFC tag here to bring in more people? --George Ho (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do. This is a small change in size but a huge one in scope alteration. Few topics are of more interest to more Wikipedians than how we handle sourcing, including estimations of its reliability, biases and intent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the good-faith action and tagged "Journalism" as disputed. --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

maybe we should regulate people's journalistic skills rather than discourage it. - that's Wikinews, not en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Fix the Journalism article if you want, but please leave the policy alone. The Encyclopedia Britannica could be considered journalism the way you're applying the definition. We're not reporting on the news, through original pieces or otherwise. The news is one of our sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• I'm going oppose also. Much of NOT, and in particular that section is just another iteration of Wikipedia is an (unoriginal) encyclopedia, including it is meant to be a an emphatic tertiary source (nothing original, except several aspects of composition) and not like a primary or secondary source. "Not journalism" gets that across in an accessible manner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• oppose wikipedia is not only NOT "original reporting" , it is also NOT "a lot of other (probably most other) types of journalism". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find the OP's proposal to be a straw man. OP suggests "journalism" is used the wrong sense whereas I can perfectly assume that "journalism" is exactly what he is saying and journalism is not allowed in Wikipedia. What Wikipedia gathers, processes and disseminates is certainly not news. In addition, investigating the pragmatic value of the word "journalism" puts this field in connection with: (a) publication of content solely because they are novel, fun, controversial or shocking and (b) content that are occasionally judgmental, unfair, far-from-truth, based on assumptions or otherwise lacking value in a court of law or in science and academia. I'd say the word "journalism" is spot-on here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the reasons stated above. The OP should consider contributing to WikiNews, not Wikipedia.--Coolcaesar (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support No matter how much we can cry WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia, indeed, does gather, process and disseminate news, daily and prominently (heck, we have a "In the news" section on our main page!) -but not as original research. Instead, it collects what other sources have reported. This can indeed be called a type of journalism, even if the notion makes people shiver. Most "oppose" above insist that the are a tertiary source, or that the news are our sources: but this is exactly what this change clarifies: we do nothing original. In fact, the proposed change here is mostly cosmetic: it does not change anything of our current practices. It only clarifies what we do. Since policy is to be more descriptive than prescriptive, I see no problems with the proposed wording, and I consider it a welcome clarification.--cyclopia^speak! 15:18, 9 September 2014 (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.

Question

What is the proposed change that is being considered? If there is a question on whether to make a particular change to this policy, then the RFC should include a Survey section for !votes. What is being !voted on? Can someone state the status quo and the proposed change so that a Survey can be added? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Change from "journalism" to "original reporting"? That's the question for you. --George Ho (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And on a lighter note: Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

There's an RfC going on for which WP:NOTDIR might be relevant (though it's mostly WP:WEIGHT).

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode? is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. The first four respondents have presented the arguments for and against inclusion pretty thoroughly. This RfC is specifically about just one episode, but the outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Right now, some of them have chapter-to-episode statements and some don't. They look and are placed like this: [5] Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As a note, I'm not really seeing too much NOT here, and more an OR issue (if one has to interpret how this is done). --MASEM (t) 14:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well one of the opponents of inclusion says that the information is too trivial to spend any space on. WP:NOTDIR seems to be the policy that would apply in that case. Just trying to make sure that no one can say the RfC shouldn't count because the bases weren't covered.

We did have an earlier discussion on whether it was OR to use the novels and episode themselves as sources for material like this. Responses were split but the decision of one RfC was that at least one secondary source was required. A number of such sources have been found for this information. The question in the current RfC is whether the line should be included or excluded on its own merits. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What about the past?

RE: the section "Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball."

This section is almost entirely written regarding future events. It could easily (and should) be broadened to include theories, speculations, hypothesis, etc. regarding events of the past as well. The reason I suggest this is that I am currently having this conversation with a relative newbie who can't grasp the concept of wp:OR, and wants to add his own speculation to the "Hypotheses about the disappearance" section of Roanoke Colony. I wanted to point him to this section but the whole focus on 'future' events seems confusing to him. I am willing to do the change(s) if agreed. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• There was a similar discussion earlier this year, see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 46#Prohibition of all speculation. I think it doesn't make sense to change the "crystal ball" section for this issue. There are also notability guidelines as well as inline citation requirements (this last one should be particularly helpful because it allows you to WP:CHALLENGE a statement and remove it if it can't be proven). And if WP:OR can't be understood by newbies, it may be better to rewrite WP:OR than to modify Crystal Ball. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

E-Cigarette RFC

I have started a RFC on E-Cigarette. The topic is "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" It may be of interest to this page since it includes "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" AlbinoFerret 12:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Does WP:CRYSTAL apply to anything other than article content?

Occasionally, editors cite WP:CRYSTAL in administrative discussions like titling decisions, e.g. claiming that we shouldn’t make such decisions based on what’s most likely to remain relevant. However, CRYSTAL only seems to address article content, and not any other kinds of editorial decisions. So, should that section be modified to explicitly say one way or the other whether it applies to anything else? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• In practice at least, WP:CRYSTAL applies to article content, article titles, redirects, categories, disambiguation, deletion discussions, etc. This has been the case throughout the very nearly 10 years I've been on Wikipedia. I don't object to this being explicitly stated, but I'm not convinced of the necessity as this is the first query about it that I can recall. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  But the section exclusively discusses the appropriateness of article content and potential topics. What part of it could possibly apply to titles, redirects, categories…? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  If the wording needs revision, show us some evidence - show us where this has become an issue. Changing it just for the sake of change is pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

IP, maybe you could elaborate where exactly this has happened and why it should only be focused on content rather than anything else. Tutelary (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I’m saying that, as written as it currently stands, it is only focused on content rather than anything else. I’m not saying it should be, but either way, clarity would be good. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also note that WP:CRYSTAL gives examples of several inappropriate article titles that would also apply to redirects and categories, e.g. we should not have a "Category:2020 Olympic Gold Medal winners" until those Olympics happen.--agr (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. If you give us an example, it would be better, but as far as I know, WP:CRYSTAL applies to claims made on Wikipedia. Hence, it encompasses implicit claims made in the forms of article titles, redirects, categories, disambiguation, etc. WP:CRYSTAL says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation and does not restrict to the articles. Same goes for: It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.

Furthermore, if it is not appropriate to, e.g. say something frivolous about Stephen Hawking in an article, I don't see why we must allow someone to get away with doing so by saying it in a template, disambiguation page, page title, etc.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this has come up in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#PROPOSAL: delete the historical significance consideration from PRIMARYTOPIC as well as in a few recent requested move discussions weighing the merits of historical (or long-term) significance with popularity (e.g., Talk:Worcester#Requested move. I believe the context is whether it requires a crystal ball to predict long-term significance when current page view statistics and general search results do not support claims that there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 14:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this is an example of what I’m asking about: a claim that we should not choose one topic as primary over another because it violates WP:CRYSTAL. This type of argument seems to interpret CRYSTAL as “Never take any action based on any predictions about anything,” which does not actually seem to be the message. Hence my confusion and this discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello again

I find the example given pretty much a case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. The fact that Crystal comes with the discussion doesn't mean it is related or relevant at all. (On the side note, that two parties are invoking WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as justification doesn't mean their dispute is over the policy; rather, it is over its interpretation.) You find all such kinds of misdirection all over Wikipedia; e.g. it is not uncommon to find "[[WP:NOTCENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]]; don't remove it" when it actually means "Don't remove it because I like it; I am labeling it as censorship either by mistake or deliberately to further deter you". To bottom line it: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculations. [...] Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included [...]" It is as simple as that. There is no inclusion nor exclusion of the scope based on whether it is an article or not.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Circus

Hello. I used 'Wikipedia is not a circus' referring to the possibility of fragrant violations of policies and guidelines not being enforced. But wouldn't this be akin to 'Wikipedia is not an anarchy' instead? Otherwise, I'd propose that maybe it be added onto this page. But I don't wanna be redundant if it's heavily similar to the anarchy portion. Tutelary (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. "Wikipedia is not a circus" [sic] is a rude alternative to "Wikipedia is not an anarchy". Emphasis on the "rude" is mine. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

• User:Cirt/Gutting

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I shall be nominating this essay for deletion as a violation of WP:AGF and a personal attack on contributors. AndyTheGrumpygrump (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. As Rex from Toy Story says, "I don't like confrontations". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought WP:AGF meant that each individual gets the benefit of the doubt, not that nobody is ever not in good faith. Wikidgood (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Great article, well done! --Maxl (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "not a democracy" ????

I'm absolutely flabbergasted to read this statement in the article. I think it is a potentially dangerous one. Because what is the opposite of democracy? A dictatorship! Of course I've seen arguments settled in a democratic way in here but the statement that Wikipedia is "not a democracy" could be, and I believe, is sometimes abused by certain people here who think their opinion count more than that of others. The world has seen and is still seing many richt and left wing dictatorships and Wikipedia should not become one. We have learned of world history that dictatorships don't work on the long run. Hitler was defeated. The Warsaw pact no longer exists. Democracy has prevailed. That should show us how important democracy is and we should not outlaw it on Wikipedia. A place like the Wikpipedia where so many people come together can only function in a democratic way and not in any other way! And democracy also demands free speech. It's not just the American constitution that is to be discussed but also the many other domocratic constitutions in the world as there are not just only American users but they are from everywhere in the world. And as to the buerocracy, also mentioned in the project page, it is said that the Wikipedia is not a buerocracy. However, I've seen people defend their perception of certain rules in a most buerocratic way, not being open to new ideas. Not everything is, obviously, going well on the Wikipedia. That's what I just wanted to say. --Maxl (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This page doesn't say that Wikipedia is the opposite of a democracy. It just says it's not a democracy, which is true. Not being a democracy doesn't mean being a dictatorship. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

In a democracy, people vote on everything. Wikipedia does not work that way. That is all. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Then it's a dictatorship, simple and clear. Not being a democracy is tantamount to being a dictatorship! And that's the big fault! Wikipedia would work so much better if things got voted on instead of inflexible rule-wielders causing frustration and anger by enforcing their rigid and undemocratic decisions. --Maxl (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a dictatorship - Wikipedia works by consensus, not by voting nor by following dictat from a single person or small hierarchy. Almost all rules on Wikipedia should be interpreted with flexibility (exceptions are principally those with legal implications), and if someone is not doing so then you should discuss it with them. If discussion is not fruitful then there exists the dispute resolution process. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting some tweaks to the crystal ball section

I'd like to formally request that we add some information to the crystal ball section. The reason for this is this AfD where there was some argument over WP:TOOSOON and CRYSTAL. There was some argument that CRYSTAL doesn't apply to things that have already released and to a certain degree I can agree with them, but here's the argument in a nutshell:

In many instances I see articles up for deletion where the topic of discussion does exist in some form or fashion (people, books, companies, etc) but the topic hasn't gained enough coverage to really pass notability guidelines (only 1-2 sources that merely announce the topic's existence but without being in-depth enough to show notability per a specific notability guideline). Some will argue that the topic at hand exists and will be likely to gain more coverage, but as we all know coverage is never guaranteed by the existence of something. In other words, we cannot predict that more coverage would be forthcoming on a topic despite its existence.

Basically what I'd like to include in the section is that the current existence of a topic (a film releasing, a person being employed, a company operating, and so on) does not automatically guarantee that it will continue to gain coverage. It does make it more likely, but it still isn't a guarantee. The recent AfD about Fig Tree Books kind of made me think that it would probably be a good idea to include something like this in the guidelines because ultimately the AfD arguments are sort of splitting hairs, saying that the idea of crystal balling doesn't apply to an article because the topic of discussion exists in some form or fashion and CRYSTAL doesn't explicitly state that it can apply to existing companies, people, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the consensus (as best I can tell) at that AfD discussion that TOOSOON and CRYSTAL don't apply there. And I also think there is no need for a tweak -- I think that's how it should be. Per discussion there. Although I've not !voted one way or another at the AfD itself, at this point in time. What's sought here isn't even it seems to me a TOOSOON or CRYSTAL issue -- everyone agrees that the subject has to meet GNG -- now. There's no support for the notion that we should keep articles at AfD because of fanciful expectations of what future coverage the article may attract. But that's the same whether the company has launched or not. In either case, if it has attracted GNG coverage, we keep it. If it has not attracted such coverage, we delete it. Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fig Tree Books. 5 people are saying delete/return to draftspace and 2 people are saying keep. How can that be construed as consensus for TOOSOON and CRYSTAL not applying?Vrac (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can disagree with the "vote" count, because consensus if not determined by counting votes. (I'm not making any judgement on consensus on the AfD in question, and as an involved party you shouldn't be either.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any prohibition on being able to question someone's assessment of a consensus. Vrac (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And I'm not aware of any prohibition against pointing out one's use of vote counting is not equivalent to consensus... It's a basic principle of debate that you don't get to declare your own arguments superior, which is much closer to what Wikipedia consensus means than vote counting. I was simply clarifying that my comment was not intended as a judgement on the actual discussion in question since I (like other involved parties) shouldn't be declaring my arguments superior. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't really a place to continue the argument for the AfD and I really only mentioned it because it was a good example of this. Basically, what we have here is a company that exists but has not gained any coverage beyond 2-3 articles mentioning that it opened. I think that sometimes something can exist but just not have achieved notability yet- meaning that it's premature (ie, too soon) for the topic to have an article on Wikipedia. I don't think that we should say that TOOSOON and CRYSTAL can't apply to something because it currently exists, when the topic in question has not yet achieved notability per various guidelines. That's kind of what TOOSOON is taken to mean because ultimately many of these AfDs revolve around the argument that because the topic has received a small pittance of media coverage (but currently fails notability guidelines) that it will continue to gain coverage, when we really can't predict that they will. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  Of course something can exist and not have notability. Five billion people exist which have no notability... There is no reason to specially call out recently formed companies. TOOSOON is basically a nice way to say "you aren't notable", not a different notability requirement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  Agree w/Thad. But that's not something to cover in this policy. Which, if one reads it (though many editors not including present company read I suspect only the name of the policy) covers "unverifiable speculation", and says the subject matter "must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

"When the topic in question has not yet achieved notability per various guidelines", the situation Tokyo posits -- the argument Tokyo is looking for already exists in those guidelines. It's already reflected, for example -- if that happens to be the case -- in failure to meet GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your own database or reference desk

Some of the difficulties still remaining with WWIN have to do with people wanting to control the WP just a little too much. I know that I have been as guilty as anyone, so I'm going to be careful in how I approach this subject. One of the things that has made a difference in my behavior here at WP (admittedly much less action overall) is that I have a Wikia page in my name. This may not be the best use of a Wikia either, but it is much less controversial and distracting than using WP as my own little soapbox on a constant basis. If I want to add my own perspective and tweaks to a WP page, I instead make a link to it on my Wikia, and add whatever extra commentary or links that I care to.

It might help to ask after the various ways (better or worse) that people see WP and the level of agency (autonomy) they feel that they need concerning WP as a whole, and certain pages or subjects that are near and dear to their hearts. Based on what they want, you can make several recommendations. They can:

• continue to edit here, but confine some material to personal drafts or userpages
• open a Wikia on a chosen field, control the content more closely, and address more items in depth
• use a Google "Sites" system, whether locked (private) or unlocked (public viewing), though creating multiple editors is a bit more difficult than with a Wikia.
• buy a domain name and have a host ISP

There are plenty of other options, but you get the idea. Does anyone have some cases to mention where these questions and approaches might be helpful? -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT#GUIDE and other fictional rules or their inevitable (mis)use

For a long time I found good and plenty of detailed information and analysis of fictional works (including games). I don't mean guides or "move and item lists" (though I would not even delete those either). I mean world, character and story element descriptions and analysis. Even if those are primarily sourced from the main resource (games / books), these are valuable resources for people (and me as a computer scientist). I don't really understand why such resources are removed? What is the problem or agenda behind having the encyclopedia not applied to fictional works or worlds?

My problem goes further though. I think I see a snowball effect happening with these deletations and removals. C was an extension of B which was an extension of A etc. Once C has been trimmed, B is trimmed shortly after, and once the snowball reaches A the page is trimmed to really blend trivia (basically claiming "A exists and is a XYZ"). All the detailed knowledge is then lost and it is much harder to understand concepts and separate / detailed information. For humans as much as computers. And I don't get the benefit here. I mean these information are clustered under very distinct categories and linked likewise on the outward "branches" of the encyclopedia graph.

What is the reason? Nobody who does not look for these things will stumble upon them, those who do by some mistake will simply realize it, and those who actually search for the articles will be happy about them. I LOVE to stumble onto (detailed!) stuff outside my domain of knowledge on Wikipedia and I feel loosing ANY knowledge (separated in articles) is a meaningless culling. I see a deep problem in culling rules like WP:NOT#GUIDE - which will be misused and appropriated eventually.

As an example [6] was culled in 2007, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaia_(Final_Fantasy_VII) was removed ("merged") in 2013. The current information towards the FF7 "world" is much more limited than it was years ago. I am not a "fan boy" here (I actually don't care about any specific game) but I do not see a destructive ideology as beneficial to an encyclopedia. (Leaving out any discussion on the quality of articles here - which could be fixed - and if not often visited - should have some time to do so). Is your aim to "govern" which knowledge is important and which is not? If so, how did you arrive at the judgment that historical information / events are more influential or beneficial or important to humanity than fictional? I think if fictional works are anything then they are often reframings and reimaginings of history in a more appealing way (to certain generations). This is an example where actually leaving and linking the fictional work would be highly beneficial.

Another aspect is that the approach fails to capture any human history. History only happens to a small degree in the non fictional world (see bible) and yet we take only measured to ensure that such age old works of fiction are accurately covered. To me, classifying and describing anything that can be, would not break the frame of an encyclopedia. And thus I don't get the destructiveness. Kind regards, JH. Please provide me with feedback (and if this is the wrong talk page - please point me to the right one :)) 2.247.103.43 (talk)

I agree with you. Even in the 20th century have covered major games and sports in considerable detail. As I understand it, the difference ought to be that the information should be enough to understand an enthusiastic player of the game, or to watch a game or sport with understanding, which will include a knowledge of the major features and elements and rules, though not in the detail that a full guide would have--a full guide is expected to cover everything. This will usually imply enough information to play the game at an elementary level, though of course not at an expert level. The key difficulty is in providing the material at a suitable level for the completely naive reader who hasn't any idea what the whole thing is about.

I see our current practice as a reaction to our earlier overemphasis of game and internet related subjects. Our coverage inevitably reflect the interests of the people writing articles, and will therefore have limitations where there is little interest in the sorts of people who come here to write. I have worked here consistently to try to include more coverage , and much higher quality coverage, on many academic areas that were almost unrepresented when I joined. But we should't balance our weak area by making all areas equally weak. We have come to forget the WP is NOT PAPER. Frankly, I would remove the rule. (And I say this as someone with an almost zero interest in most of the field--I see no reason why my interests should define the encyclopedia--even if I personally were writing or editing the encyclopedia I would seek out people in the areas where I was ignorant and uninterested.

We're not likely to remove the rule. The only solution is to actively look for the increasing amount of published material--even academic published material--on these topics. They are entering the academic curriculum--not just in the use of serious games in teaching, but in the acceptance of games and sports as objects of study. The analogy is the 18th century refusal to admit vernacular literature into the academic curriculum, and the 19th century refusal to extend their serious study to current fiction. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's basically how much secondary sources have given to analysis of works; if no one has gone into indepth details of the plot and characters of a work, we shouldn't either. Additionally, resources like wikia are better sources for this type of information that doesn't fit the context of an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 06:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OP has a good point, and DGG may be on mark when he posits that its an overreaction to a plethora of overenthusiastic and prolix fans. Which is a real thing, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, we want to be careful about going down a path where much material is sourced to some individual's editor's experience of an entity (that is, describing a game and sourcing it to the game itself). For that reason, as well as the indication of notability they confer, we pretty much want to have secondary sources. No secondary sources, no material, as a general rule. Herostratus (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, 2.247.103.43, for bringing up this topic, which seems to be taboo here at Wiklipedia. I am not trying to hi-jack your thread, but thought I would mention that fictional works are not the only piece of history that disappears when articles are deleted, take for example the fairly recent deletion of Death of Kevin Flanagan which had survived for a long time on Wikipedia, but disappeared without causing too many ripples in September 2014. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree with you that the material is worthwhile, but the argument about secondary sources and a "one-man band" is fairly persuasive as well. If two editors get into a flamewar over some point that has no mediating source, it gets even uglier. I'd love to see that same kind of material on a Wikia (see my post above) to both preserve the fictional world details and make it clear that someone in particular is taking the responsibility for editorial decisions. We are moving from a world of strict practicality to a world with deeper and more phenomenal meanings being emphasized, and I'd like our bases of knowledge to reflect that. We're beginning to realize that we now live in a world which could aptly be described as "sci-fi", and how much longer will it be before there are elements that smack of science fantasy and magickal fantasy? P:D Good luck, and Happy New Year! -- 19:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastWordSword (talk • contribs)

Edit request

Can someone please make an edit to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion.

From:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

To:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, files, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

The reasoning behind this should be self-evident. Thank you in advance. 213.168.187.2 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DICT

Hi guys. It's time for the quarterly content policy update, and I noticed that WP:DICT was added to the content policies. I asked about this at User talk:Jarble#WP:WINAD, and the best I can tell, there was no discussion leading to the change, so I'm about to revert it. But I promised I'd bring the subject up here. WP:DICT used to be a deletion policy; my understanding is that it's been cited sometimes when deleting a page someone had created merely to define a word or phrase. Does it get much use as a content policy, or is the text here at WP:NOT more likely to be cited on this subject? (I'm not reverting because I disagree, I'm trying to stay neutral on this ... I'm reverting because we usually revert big changes to content policy that weren't discussed first, then have a discussion.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This and this are the edits that Dank is referring to; the first one concerns a category. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I share in the blame for adding the policy to the content policies category. While developing the master list of policies and guidelines, I was sorting policies into categories and happened to sort that one into the content policies category. This was intended as a simple exercise in cataloging and was not intended to carry significant policy ramifications. In any case, it makes sense to consider it a content policy, since it governs the nature of Wikipedia's content—namely, that it does not take the form of dictionary entries. I am open to suggestions to superior categories to sort it under. Harej (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to any resolution that respects the way policy pages actually work ... that is, if people are citing WP:DICT to support changes to pages, and if in turn changes are being made to DICT as we discover what the consensus is on when it's okay to give meanings of words and phrases, then I have no objection at all. If that's not happening, if DICT reflects what someone wishes Wikipedia were like but it doesn't reflect practice, then it's not a content policy page, though some version of it still might be useful as a deletion policy, since pages that are merely definitions are often deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Harej's work on Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines, I was doing some cleanup of Wikipedia:List of policies a couple years ago and decided to move Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to the content category after observing WP:NOT#DICT in WP:NOT (a content policy). Primarily, the reasoning was that WP:DICT is ultimately a kind of "sub-policy" of WP:NOT#DICT; after all, the concept "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" logically follows "What Wikipedia is not". IMO, content is what the policy is ultimately about (i.e., dictionary material is not encyclopedic content), and I'd say it's better to be accurate about policy categorization than try to retain historical continuity in WP:UPDATE, if that is a concern. Further, while I agree that WP:DICT often functions as a deletion tool, the same can be said about most policies -- WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:CV, even WP:VAND function prominently in deletion matters all the time. NTox · talk 01:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Social Networking

Although the page touts itself as not being a social network, then how is there communication between users? The common denominator (Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia) is communication. The other two allow unrestricted content, while content here is regulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.133.182 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

the communication here among users is about improving Wikipedia, and very closely related topics. It's a community work space, not a social space, though there's also some brief friendly exchange among those working here, as common in work spaces everywhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Should I undo my previous edits to this page?

Over the last several years, I have made various minor changes to this page. Some of my edits to this page were redundant (including the links that I edited in WP:NOTCENSORED), so I'd like to undo them. Is it possible to undo all of these edits in one step? Jarble (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a place for feedback on an article, where the feedback does not precisely fit all guidelines?

There are a couple of closed, decision-making discussions about the article "List of films featuring mental disorders". One Wikipedia guideline that I found (at the bottom of the referenced discussion page) says that further contributions to a closed, decision-making discussion should be placed in the "Talk" section of the article. I would like to add my appreciation and reasons for supporting the decision that was reached. Another guideline, however, states that the "Talk" section of an article is reserved for improving the page. Therefore, I am not clear on whether such a posting would be appropriate or not. Kindly clarify. Thank you. DddiamWiki (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)dddiamWiki

No, there is no "feedback" page (there once was a feedback tool but fortunately it was removed because over 95% of the feedback was junk). There are no hard-and-fast rules at Wikipedia so I would say just add a short comment under the closed discussion, provided the new comment is not likely to be interpreted as a campaign of some kind—for example, at Talk:PETA it would not be appropriate to add a comment about how it is good that the article reveals the dreadful cruelty inflicted on animals by awful people. See WP:RGW which tells us that Wikipedia should not be used to right great wrongs. In general, questions like this can be asked at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

clickbait

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.

---

An editor inserted an entire section, namely this:

===Wikipedia is not clickbait===

Articles in Wikipedia are not written with the sole intent to attract the most readership (clickbait). Inclusion in Wikipedia is decided by taking into account notability guidelines rather than the specific popularity of an item or the likelihood it is to attract content consumers. Prurient, outrageous, or salacious content on Wikipedia may be included if there are reliable sources that discuss such content, but lacking that it is not the place of Wikipedia to play host to such.

which seems reasonable but I do not want to see an entire section added to this important page without an exhaustive discussion. I haven't thought through the implications of this, if it's a solution in search of a problem, how this could be misused, and much else, and I'd like to. So I've reverted the addition and let's discuss this first. Herostratus (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. I have lately seen statements about the popularity of various Wikipedia pages in terms of pageviews being used as justification for Keep !votes. I think it's been standard practice for 15 years of Wikipedia that the popularity of a Wikipedia page does not determine its encyclopedic nature. Still, I would like a discussion. jps (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to me. It repeats what we already know - that Wikipedia notability guidelines determine appropriate subject matter - and then goes off at a tangent regarding specific content that may or may not be 'clickbait'. This policy isn't intended to be exhaustive, and before extending it to cover arguments for inclusion which are already invalid, I think we need something in the way of evidence that such an extension is actually merited. Furthermore the wording as it stands might be Wikiplayered into justifications for including salacious material, contrary to established standards: "It is sourced, so policy says we can include it..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need some indicator that popularity is not a good metric by which to claim that Wikipedia articles should exist is all. I don't really care how it is worded, but given the current culture of internet content creation, this is going to come up more and more, I fear. jps (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But I don't agree with that. I think that popularity and pageviews is worth considering, by which I mean it's reasonable to include it as a factor in weighing the worth of an article -- not terribly important, but not nothing either. We exist to serve readers, of many kinds, and they are, in a sense, our customers. There's no benefit to going out of our way to deliberately refuse to even consider whether the reading public likes the article and wants it to exist (which high pageview shows, I guess). It's complicated and we don't want to keep stuff this is truly unencyclopedic cruft; I'm talking about borderline cases. If "statements about the popularity of various Wikipedia pages in terms of pageviews being used as justification for Keep !votes" is rampant, or is being applied to obvious cruft, then we might have a problem. Do we? Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:ENC and WP:RS are guiding principles I use. There is no way that high pageviews can trump that, but, yes, there are conversations I've had (and am currently having) where people are making the arguments that in spite of there not being good sources, the high pageviews indicate we should have an article. jps (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The proper response to such arguments has to be that without good sources, we have nothing to base an article on - a response that doesn't need new policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think the proposed addition is necessary. I don't think it tells us anything we don't already know from N and V and NOR. James500 (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I like that we have agreement that clickbait isn't a good excuse for Wikipedia article creation (save, perhaps, some concerns by Herostratus). But there really is no one-stop-shop for an explanation of this. I could write an essay, but this idea is pretty succinct. jps (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems ripe for misuse, and any non controversial aspects of it are handled by WP:N and WP:RS, probably best to leave it out. Artw (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth, I think, noting here that while popularity (or lack of) is not a good reason to create, keep or delete an article, it is a good and very frequently used factor for creating and deciding the fate of redirects (frequent misspellings, alternative titles, common misnomers, etc, should all have redirects). Anything added about click bait should therefore be careful to use "articles" not "pages". Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:ITSUSEFUL is the general rationale for redirects. A tiny little aside about popularity contests not deciding article content in that space might work. How does that strike you? jps (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

NM -- Thanks to Thryduulf for jogging my memory: I discovered an excellent answer: WP:POPULARPAGE. That's all I needed. jps (talk) 14:10, 12 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.