Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 164

< Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ERFC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Sunrise in topic On the use of deprecated sources
Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements

Latest comment: 4 years ago116 comments33 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus among participating editors that endorsements from an individual must meet all three of the following criteria for inclusion on a list of endorsements:
  1. The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
  2. This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
  3. Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

For organizations (including the media) there is consensus for criteria 1 & criteria 3 and no consensus for criteria 2.

Notes:

  1. The wording of criteria 3 was proposed differently than the consensus reached by participating editors. In reading the comments while most people bolded support, the actual comments provided more nuance. There is an explicit consensus against against use of donations, generalized support, or the like as evidence of an endorsement. Given that criteria 2 passed, it is the closer's expectations that reliable independent sources will make clear when coverage is about an endorsement (or closely related synonym) rather than merely supporting.
  2. For organizations this is no consensus, as in unresolved consensus, and not a consensus against. This means that editors may reach a WP:LOCALCONSENUS about whether or not to include an endorsement when it meets criteria 1 & 3 but not 2.
  3. Some editors expressed concern about the notability of such lists of endorsements altogether but this was beyond the scope of this RfC.
  4. As noted in the original RfC question the scope of this RfC is only lists of endorsements (whether its own article or a section/sub-section of an article) and does not apply to endorsements discussed outside of such lists.
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


We have many stand-alone and embedded lists of political campaign endorsements (see for example, Category:2020 United States presidential election endorsements). The inclusion criteria of these lists are frequently debated, and the lists themselves subject to frequent additions based on unclear language published only on social media. This RfC attempts to create baseline inclusion criteria for such lists, which can be built upon as needed on article talk pages. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Links to some past discussions

Discussions are sprawling across many articles and project pages. This list isn't intended to be exhaustive -- just those which were easily findable.

The scope of this RfC is on lists of endorsements of political campaigns, whether stand-alone or part of another article. It does not apply to endorsements discussed outside of lists.

There are three proposals for inclusion criteria, which should be evaluated separately (one does not depend on the others). (If you would like to add to this list, please start a separate thread rather than add to this one).

1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people or organizations.

Note on #1: Whether or not it is necessary for the person to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level

2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.

Note on #2: This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example.

3. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

Note on #3: Expressions of support, use of particular hashtags, comments about donating to a campaign, and other forms of praise of a candidate is often included as an "endorsement". Support of this criterion would require the endorsement be explicit. In most cases, this would require use of the word "endorsement" by the person endorsing or by media coverage thereof. Other language which can be understood as unequivocal endorsement can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (for example, "I am campaigning for Candidate X" or "I am backing Candidate X").

— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 1: Endorsements should be by notable people or organizations

  • Actually, I have to disagree with this, though I support the sentiment. Vermin may be satirical, but so was George Carlin. Your background is as irrelevant as your given sex, taken without context. Intellectual communities, when not subject to obvious detailed public scrutiny, such as Wikipedia, often thrive on humour. Have you not allowed The Cabal to affect you here on Wikipedia? It's really down to notability and verifability. Vermin himself may or not be notable enough for this sort of thing, but when a personality like this is notable, they must be respected, or bias is institutionalised. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, dash of RFC, a sprinkling of neutrality, there. ~ R.T.G 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @RTG: I'll have you know that I don't even know what a mop is and can only make messes. But to my point, perhaps you misunderstand? Vermin Supreme is undeniably notable, however I am definitely not. If Vermin Supreme tweeted out an endorsement of me, that could be included in my list of endorsements because he is notable. If I tweet out an endorsement of Vermin Supreme, that should not be added to his list of endorsements. Essentially, while there is some wiggle room over whether twitter is a reliable source, that an endorsement is sourced is not sufficient for the endorsement to be included. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought you must be somehow trying to reject Supremes authority... Well I would point that point out if it is brought up. ~ R.T.G 12:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - a la LISTN, but I'm happy for additions from those without articles (most likely state/province level politician endorsements) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This aligns well with existing policy, and the type of information that an encyclopedia should include (WP:NOTEVERYTHING).- MrX 🖋 12:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as above. Neutralitytalk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but the usual wording for lists of people, is "have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one", and remember that every member of a state or national legislature is presumed to be entitled to a Wikipedia article, whether or not it has been written ,and this is among the strongest of our presumed notabilities--Icannot recall a single exception in the last 10 years. ; this also applies generally to mayors of cites with population > 100,000 or perhaps > 5000 ) , and members of city councils of the largest cities. This will include a very large proportion of the people who tend to be listed DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support under WP:CSC (first criterion, "Every entry meets the notability criteria") combined with the generally accepted rule of thumb that notability is not inherited. There are simply too many endorsements otherwise. — Newslinger talk 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per our various criteria for lists. If our contributors weren't so lazy, they'd develop prose within paragraphs. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As stayed by others above, this fits with multiple existing policies and guidelines Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1 & 2 in altenative That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: I should think this is sine qua non, so long as the caveat stated by DGG is heeded. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I support adding all three of these proposals to a rule, though I consider this the least important one - if an reliable source reports someone supports, say, Jacinda Ardern, the person supporting will very likely be notable anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 08:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I just want to point out the oppose discussions alone are based on false premises - if the New York Times covers someone endorsing a particular candidate, that coverage would also likely count towards WP:GNG for the endorser, and that person would almost certainly be notable in that instance (WP:NOT aside. Furthermore, an anonymous op-ed should not be included unless it's the op ed of a specific reliable organisation - if my local paper ran an anonymous op ed, say for and against a candidate, that shouldn't be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, provided option 2 passes. I understand the thinking behind this proposal and why it has received so much support, but consider this in the context where the "independent reliable sources" requirement passes. This criterion would be used to argue that an endorsement that has received substantial coverage but which is from someone not otherwise considered notable should not be listed; I don't agree with that. We should report any endorsement that has received significant secondary coverage, and should not second-guess sources by saying "sure, the NYT covered this endorsement, but they were wrong to do so because this guy isn't notable." If criterion 2 fails I would reluctantly support this as necessary, but I think relying on our own judgment of whether a endorser is notable is a mistake (and if we rely on secondary sources, then this is made entirely redundant by criterion 2.)--Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as redundant and secondly some people may have notable endorsements despite not having notability themselves. For example, if the writer of the anonymous op-ed criticizing the Trump administration decided to endorse a Democratic primary candidate that would be immediately notable and worthy of inclusion, but since the character of the anonymous author of the op-ed isn't notable him or herself it wouldn't be included if this criteria is passed. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support duh! Would (oldosfan) 02:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - notability is not a sufficient criterion that their political opinion is in any way relevant. Adding the stated political opinions of every notable person is unlikely to be useful to the reader - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with what you're saying, but not your bolded bit. It is not sufficient on its own, which is why we have the other criteria proposed here. They aren't intended as alternatives and certainly aren't mutually exclusive. By supporting 2 and not 1, the implication is that we would allow, say, a random person-on-the-street/local business owner/non-notable influencer whose meme gets covered in a reliable source, etc. It is not sufficient on its own, but it is, I would say, an important part. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is Wikipedia, so I think you'd need a stopwatch to time the delay before opinions from tens or hundreds of vapid celebrities cited to a tweet are added to articles - because that's what it says - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're arguing, but I'll just make one more try at presentation here and will leave it at this:
If you want lists full of endorsement tweets from notable people, support 1 and oppose 2.
If you want lists full of endorsements by the guy who owns the local bakery, the county comptroller, and the non-notable social media influencer who has a meme today (which do sometimes get picked up in RSes), oppose 1 and support 2.
If you want lists with endorsements by notable people if they're covered in reliable sources, support 1 and 2. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1 & 2 in altenative As stated in the discussion, i believe exceptions should be made for when a notable individual endorses a candidate regardless of media coverage, as well as exceptions for when mainstream media covers the endorsements of non-notable individuals! (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of criterion 1

  • I Support 1 & 2 in thee alternative. That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required, if either is satisfied, the endorsement can be (not must be) listed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I just want to co-sign what DESiegel said, i believe that if a person who has their own Wikipedia page (say a youtuber) endorses a candidate on their social media, even if no other independent media reports on that endorsement, i think it would only make sense to have that endorsement be listed! On the other hand, say a regional publication lists the endorsement of a bunch of local politicians for a candidate, so long as it is a reliable source, i say we should include these endorsements as well! (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Just going on record to be clear that I would strongly oppose the above, which would allow inclusion of citations to tweets/social media/personal blogs and would allow the inclusion of non-notable people contra WP:LISTPEOPLE, as long as we don't have them together. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I want to disagree heavily with the above reasons. i believe that it is important that Wikipedia recognize an endorsement from what it already considers a notable individual--especially if that notable individual is a member of an independent media outlet (such as The Majority Report) which competes with establishment media--because establishment media would have a direct interest in not reporting on such an endorsement.PB The other half of that, listing non notable individuals when they are reported from reliable sources, is important because it can better give readers a sense of the political situation in that area. For example, if CNN reports a list of endorsements for Beto by local Iowa elected officials, it would give readers a better sense in this case of how the Iowa Primary would go, or why it did go the way it went. Another example is that Rick Santorum had only two new Hampshire state reps endorse him, and lost that primary. Hope i have cleared up my reasoning here! (0w0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 2: Endorsements should be covered by independent reliable sources

  • Support - For reasons of WP:WEIGHT as well as RS. Self-published sources can be reliable for someone's own opinion, but the ephemeral sentiments expressed in a Tweet are far from a formal endorsement in most cases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Weak-ish) support I don't think Wikipedia should be engaging in the WP:OR-like behaviour of trawling social media sites to compile lists of people who have tweeted in favour of a candidate. If an endorsement is notable as an endorsement, then it will receive decent secondary source coverage. I say "weak-ish" because I fear this will be difficult to police. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as the general rule. This is what we want for most content anyway, and we should not be in business of interpreting statements drawn from original research. If #1 and #3 are both clearly satisfied, then maybe an exception could be made, but those cases will typically draw third-party coverage anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let me preface this by saying that of course having a reliable source for every endorsement would be ideal. However, there are many individuals who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but are often not notable enough to have their tweets and political sentiments covered by the media. This is especially true for non-politicians, such as many of the individuals who have endorsed Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, and others via tweets and social media. It is also worth noting that many of these independent sources are actually based on tweets themselves. Elon Musk is a prime example; he made a three-word tweet, and it was instantly picked up by myriad media sources. Also, per WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field ... This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook. As for the five criteria listed, as far as I'm concerned, none of them are violated by citing tweets that are published by the individuals themselves when they are explicitly endorsements. I agree that sometimes, tweets that are not explicit expressions of support slip in, but these non-endorsements can easily be removed by any editor. I myself have done this extensively on this article for the past few months. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The idea that there are many individuals who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but are often not notable enough to have their tweets and political sentiments covered by the media strikes me as a highly problematic reason to include something. Inclusion of, well, anything on Wikipedia should be because it's important enough for independent sources to cover it. It's not the case that once a person becomes notable, whatever they say is worth including in the encyclopedia. (For context, a difference of opinion between Bobbychan193 and me on this point at endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries‎‎ is what led me down a path searching for past discussions, to try to find precedent for a clear inclusion criteria). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The whole point of endorsement lists is to list out endorsements. What makes one endorsement more important than another? Only if the media reports it? I disagree with this sentiment. It's not the case that once a person becomes notable, whatever they say is worth including in the encyclopedia. This is not what I am saying. Again, the whole point of endorsement lists is to list out endorsements, and I don't see why we can't do that if an individual tweets out an endorsement. (Other users have mentioned other reasons on that talk page. Some examples: Given the sheer volume of potential endorsements, not every single expression of support is going to be reported on, so it's inevitable that tweets will sometimes be the only place they will be mentioned and a celebrity's personal account tweeting in support has been used frequently as a source for endorsement and it is often without another citation. When they specifically say they support the candidate, it's an endorsement. If not, then remove most of Bernie Sanders' endorsements. The criteria in 2016 was explicit support and/or the campaign hashtag. Just pointing out arguments that other editors have laid out.) Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
"What makes one endorsement more important than another? Only if the media reports it?" Yes. That's how Wikipedia works. We report what reliable sources say. What makes any event more important than another? Because a reliable source talks about it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Those were rhetorical questions. My point was that all endorsements are categorically equal. An endorsement isn't "less of an endorsement" just because the media doesn't pick up on it. Think about it, if person A and person B both endorse candidate C, but the media only reports endorsement A, endorsement B is still categorically an endorsement. Sure, some people, like Elon Musk, might be more "important" than others, and that's part of why there are media sources reporting on these endorsements (other reasons: money/clickbait, bandwagon reporting, etc.). But other endorsements wouldn't be considered "lesser" endorsements just because the media doesn't report them. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No, all endorsements are not categorically equal, just as all information is not categorically of equal value on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate container of all facts. We are selective. We are an encyclopaedia. We decide what information merits inclusion with reference to reliable, secondary sources. If you went to an AfD and said an article should be included without secondary source reporting, no-one would listen to you. If some political scandal could only be sourced to some private tweets and wasn't covered by secondary source reporting, we wouldn't add it to an election article. Why should endorsements be treated differently from other facts on Wikipedia? Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
When I said "categorically", I meant by definition. An endorsement is by definition an endorsement. Reflexive property. It doesn't matter whether a news source reports on it. An unreported endorsement is still by definition an endorsement. (Also see WP:DUCK) Sure, you can argue that unreported endorsements shouldn't be included, but they are still endorsements by definition. In my view, given the other two criteria (notability and explicitness), we would be selective, and the lists would not be an indiscriminate container of all facts. Why should we cast aside all unreported endorsements? Why shouldn't we make these lists more complete? Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • this refers to standalone information, and not information itself - Hmm. I don't intend to respond to all the opposers here, but I can't make heads or tails of that this means. Would you mind rewording? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We have many stand-alone and embedded lists of political campaign endorsements, This RfC attempts to create baseline inclusion criteria for such lists. As to my words, the key is it should be clear this refers to standalone, as even short lists within independent articles, I imagine, will be regularly challenged by invoking this guideline. Maybe I should have said Conditional and demanded that "standalone" be made clear. Or maybe it should pass and wait and see if further clarification is required to avoid creep. I'll keep my eye on it, but I'm flying by this instant, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 19:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying. I did intend this to apply to lists of endorsements in both stand-alone and embedded lists, but not article prose. If people would support for one but not the other, that seems like a reasonable distinction to make, which could be factored in at closing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You're right, my comment didn't make sense. You did say "embedded". I'm just going to strike from any input here for the moment. Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing out the error. ~ R.T.G 00:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for organizations specifically for media outlets. I'm unsure whether this is the case in the United States, but in the UK and Australia at least it is routine for newspapers to officially endorse a party in elections via an editorial (see here for examples). These are going to be more significant than any endorsement by an individual, but they're rarely going to be covered in an independent RS. Partly because they all come out at the end of the campaign, partly because no one likes writing about the competition unless they've done something embarrassing. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I have seen independent reporting of newspaper endorsements. That said, you raise an interesting point. I was presuming that, say, The Times saying who it supported in an editorial would count under this rule. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad this was raised, but I don't think it's as much of an issue as you'd think. Just looking at the most recent UK general election, it's easy to find coverage of the other papers' endorsements in the Press Gazette, the i and the Guardian. I'm not sure the benefits of such an exception would outweigh the risks of permitting indiscriminate listings of newspapers and blogs. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as a sensible limit to avoid sprawling lists of unimportant endorsements. For example, a minor comedian tweeting that he likes Tulsi, should not make the list unless an reliable independent publication takes notice. I also endorse RaiderAspect's exception for media outlets, provided that they are notable media outlets.- MrX 🖋 13:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for individuals and organizations, but not on media outlets - If no RS reports on the endorsement, I think it's unlikely it will be very noteworthy. With the ample coverage of modern campaigns, it seems quite likely that nearly all endorsements of any significance at all will have some coverage in RS. For media outlets (i.e., editorials), I view the editorial itself as the RS for its own opinion. Neutralitytalk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Go back to basics. The notability criteria apply to the content of the endorsement; it needs to be covered by reliable, independent third parties. Notable people say all kinds of things, but we don't add it to an article unless it is reported in a reliable, independent source. The notability and reliable sourcing criteria don't change just because someone endorses a politician. If they posted on their personal website that they encouraged people to check out the Chicken Kiev at Notable Restaurant, we wouldn't be putting that in the article about the restaurant. Risker (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The recent Canadian election featured several candidates and even a major political party claiming endorsements that hadn't actually been given, misquoting notable people to imply that an endorsement had been given, and so on. I have no doubt it is already happening in the US election. We should not rely on any source that hasn't been fact-checked by a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking. Risker (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. If significant, non-independent sources such as op-eds and media outlet endorsements will definitely be mentioned by other independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 00:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Since many social media users can delete or hide prior posts, we ought not even consider that as a potential source on themselves. Published records are in the hands of consumers (like libraries). Chris Troutman (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - If no reliable sources think an endorsement is worth mentioning, why should Wikipedia? Doing so gives the endorsement (and perhaps the endorsee) UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 1 & 2 in alternative That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for individuals and organizations, but not on media outlets: For the former, of course; the latter is a simple distinction: media outlets are, by and of themselves, the reliable source for the endorsement. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely. All endorsements need to be covered by reliable sources independent either the person or organisation making the endorsement. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This should be the only criteria, just like anything else. I would go so far as to say that I'm unsure whether this RFC is necessary on this point, since WP:RS / WP:V already applies and is not subject to consensus; an endorsement is a statement about a third party (and therefore never covered by WP:SPS or WP:ABOUTSELF.) Such statements always require a high-quality reliable secondary source, without exception. --Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Aquillion, this is the correct criterion - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of criterion 2

  • I guess to clarify my stance, my main issue with this is that we shouldn't exclude an endorsement just because a media source didn't report it. Like, if a notable individual has clearly endorsed a candidate (based on our criteria #3) and the media didn't report it, it's still an endorsement. It just doesn't make sense to me to exclude such endorsements. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    The endorsement is only notable if it is covered by reliable, independent sources. Notability applies to the content of the edit, not the person who said whatever was said. Risker (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    actually, notability only applies to teh existanc or non-existanced of an articel it never applies to selection of article content, and the policy says this explicitly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Well then obviously I said it wrong. An endorsement by Cousin Becky in the family newsletter should not make it into our article. An endorsement by Senator Foghorn, reported in the New York Times, probably should. Notable person (i.e., someone who has WP article about them) publicly endorsing the candidate as reported in well-regarded reliable source should be the boundary. Risker (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
That is cleaer yes. Several people inn the discussion have been speaking about the "notability of the endorsement" which is just not how notability works. Perhaps that was intended only as shorthand, but "notability" is a term of art here on Wikipedia, and it is better not to muddy it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
That siad, the above is clearer but I disagree with it. If anyone's endorsement is reported by the NY Times, then it should be liated, whether the person has an article or not. And If SAenator Foghorn endor5ses Joe Blow for Gov, that is worth listing even if it is done in a tweet, and not reported in the media. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah see, this is where actual practice disagrees. We decide what to include in articles on a daily basis by looking at whether or not the proposed content is "notable". We might very well be able to find reliable sources that say Notable Cousin Becky has a wart on her elbow, but we're not going to include it unless her claim to notability is that she has a wart on her elbow. And I do disagree with you that Notable Senator putting out a tweet endorsing Candidate A should make the list. It should only make the list when an independent third party thinks the endorsement is significant enough to report it. It's okay for us not to agree about this, but I want to make it clear that I don't think any endorsement that is not independently reported should be included; otherwise, it's just an advert. Risker (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would some of the proponents of this be willing to sandbox versions of the articles in Category:2016 United States presidential election endorsements so we can see just what effect this might have? I worry that the US media's tendency to ignore third-party candidates might result in unbalanced articles, where Democratic and Republican candidates have many more "minor" endorsements listed. Anomie⚔ 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • If you look at the history of Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries you can see where I removed everything that was sourced only to social media. Another run-through would be required to remove those just sourced to the candidate/campaign's website, but it's an approximation. I tend to wince a little when I read "balance" in this sort of context, though. Isn't a balance achieved by throwing out the extent to which subjects receive secondary source coverage a definition of false balance? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I Support 1 & 2 in the alternative. That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required, if either is satisfied, the endorsement can be (not must be) listed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 3: Endorsements should be unequivocal and explicit

  • Support - I was surprised to see how many "endorsements" we include are actually just people using a particular hashtag, expressing positive feelings about a candidate, saying they've donated, talking about going to a fundraiser, etc. This also gets at the problem of using only social media as sources. Something published in a reliable independent source would be less likely to pick something like that up and call it an endorsement. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe As per basic principles, if we're claiming X backs Y, we need a source showing that X backs Y and merely expressing positive feelings or attending an event shouldn't cut it. That said, I am wary about requiring specific language, like expecting the word "endorsement". Different countries, even those notionally speaking the same language, use different words and phrases. There is a particular culture of endorsement in the US and we shouldn't be applying how endorsements are done in the US and the language used around them to other countries. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Preferably, but this is the weakest of the three suggested criteria. If there is a consensus of independent reliable sources under criterion #2 above that X has made an endorsement, then we should follow their lead rather than trying to interpret primary-source material. --RL0919 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Donating to a campaign, using particular hashtags, and/or attending any candidate event are not enough to be considered endorsements in isolation. This is because 1. Any individual can donate to multiple candidates or attend the events of multiple candidates (Example: Jack Dorsey donated to both Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard) 2. Hashtags, such as #YangGang, could be interpreted as a way to boost the visibility of a tweet, or attract attention from people who search said hashtag. I think that minor variations of "I endorse xyz", such as "I support xyz", "I am campaigning for xyz", or "I am voting for xyz", are explicit enough to be considered support. (Example: again, Elon Musk's tweet. If myriad independent sources consider this an endorsement, then I don't see any reason we as editors can't similarly interpret other tweets. Why should we wait for a media source to essentially do the same thing?) I agree that this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, especially for tweets that may be slightly more ambiguous than your standard "I support xyz". Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Prefer 2. If a reliable independent source calls it an endorsement, we should list it as an endorsement regardless of whether an editor thinks it's equivocal. Obviously we should prefer unequivocal and explicit endorsements, but I'd prefer following RSs over our own judgment on what that constitutes. In the absence of 2, I'd support this, but am otherwise neutral on it. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wugapodes and RL0919: I agree with both of you. I added this as separate from #2 for two reasons. First, in case #2 doesn't pass. Second, because there's still the question of interpreting the language of reliable sources. If a reliable source says that someone attended a fundraiser, tweeted in support of, used a particular hashtag, praised, etc., do we interpret that as an endorsement, or does the RS need to call it an endorsement? There are some other terms which, to me, are quite close in meaning or allow easy inference like "backed," "declared full support for," "campaigned for," etc. but there, too, I think it's tricky. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Somewhat support - most of the examples should be gone, but I don't think it needs to be as ironclad as "I endorse X for president" etc. On a distinct tack, if a RS says it's an endorsement and it isn't blatantly vague, then that should also suffice. However some filtering is clearly needed - a positive statement doth not an endorsement make Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It's unfortunate that this has to be documented, but it's surprising what some editors consider endorsements. An endorsement should include the word endorse, or a synonym like support, recommend, back, approve, etc. If a reasonable person questions whether something is an endorsement, then it should not be considered such. Vague comments, shout outs, donations, attending events, and the like should not be interpreted as endorsements. WP:V is the underlying policy. - MrX 🖋 13:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree wholly with MrX. Neutralitytalk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Given the nuances of the English language, there are many things that sound supportive that aren't endorsements. Let us stick to the explicit and if necessary go behind the RS (who have their own agendas) to look at the statement and see if it really is an endorsement. I agree with Ched that we should not have such lists of endorsements, but am also dubious that they could be stamped out if we wanted to.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support under WP:V. I agree with MrX here: we cannot extrapolate a claim that is stronger than what is presented in the underlying source. — Newslinger talk 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NOR. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Turning a “statement of support” into a full blown “endorsement” would violate WP:NOR. So requiring that the endorsement be explicit makes sense. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. "Endorsement" is loaded language if it were used to describe mere passing statements of support. feminist (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this definitely seems justified. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely agree. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per my logic to criterion 1 (and I strenuously urge the support !votes to step back and consider the implications of having this pass alongside criterion 2) - yes, this proposal sounds appealing, but this is not a call we should be making ourselves. The call on whether a particular statement counts as an "endorsement" is entirely based on how reliable sources characterize it, and should never depend on editors adjudicating whether the statement is "unequivocal and explicit." If this passes, I foresee people saying things like "yes, the NYT, LA Times, etc. describes this as an endorsement, but I personally think their wording was ambiguous, so we can't include it because the RFC required that it be unequivocal or explicit." If WP:RSes say it's an endorsement, then it's an endorsement and ought to be listed. Fullstop. (EDIT: Unless this is interpreted to mean just "the endorsement must be described as such by reliable sources", but that's not how I read it now.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aquillion: the wording of the proposal (well, specifically, the "Note on #3" just below the bolded bit) says 'In most cases, this would require use of the word "endorsement" by the person endorsing or by media coverage thereof' - I suspect the interpretation of this along the lines of what you describe is uncontroversial, given WP:V and the support for #2 above. I worded it to talk about the endorsement itself, too, because going into this RfC we're still using Tweets, etc. as sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of criterion 3

  • Please give an example of an equivocal or inexplicit endorsement, and why that disqualifies the notability assumed by Criterion 1. ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Examples
  • "Let's win the era! @PeteButtigieg has me excited about the next generation of American government"
  • "I have listened with an open heart and an open mind and time after time, the individual who has continually impressed me with his consistent, thoughtful, and error-free presentation of our values and needs in this country is @PeteButtigieg. He has risen to the top"
  • "Go #PETE !!⁦@PeteForUSA2020 @PeteButtigieg"
  • "@PeteButtigieg i think you have a shot at uniting this country again. i am a big fan and am sending you all my support. if there is anything i can ever do for you pls let me know"
  • "Same" (responding to the one above)
  • "Buona settimana!!! HAVE A GREAT WEEK!!! Feliz semana! 👊🏻👊🏻👊🏻 @PeteButtigieg #mayorpete #petebuttigieg #accettomiracoli #aceptomilagros #buonacattivasorte #buenamalasuerte #tzn2020"
  • "This guy is so smart and on point and he wore the 🇺🇸 uniform. Good luck @PeteButtigieg - you are what this country needs."
  • "A candidate for #President that speaks, genuinely, of #unity, #prayer and #reflection. I'm all over that, thanks #PeteButtigieg #PeteForAmerica @PeteButtigieg"
  • "Still believe Mayor Pete is our best candidate for the presidency. His unique combination of qualifications is unbeatable. All our candidates are talented and good, but Mayor Pete stands out. He will be a great president. And we desperately need greatness in the Oval Office"
  • "Please RT. Only 174 $1 donations by midnight to reach goal for @TulsiGabbard !pic.twitter.com/KTOCZp0NNR"
  • “Oh noooooo, @KamalaHarris guess what?! @TulsiGabbard has your number. She is by far the better candidate. Go Tulsi"
  • "A Joe Biden/Kamela Harris ticket or a Kamala Harris/Joe Biden ticket would please me greatly!"
  • "GHosts for @BetoORourke fundraiser tomorrow evening in NYC:"
  • "Bernie @SenSanders or @elizabethforma (Elizabeth Warren) would be two people I would LOVE to see in the White House, as both of them would be capable and ready to fix the damage caused by the @GOP and the Trumpino crime family"
  • "God I wish we weren't a sexist hellscape so she'd get the nomination"
  • "Increasingly all-in for Elizabeth Warren, gotta say"
  • "Here's one very good reason to be for Elizabeth Warren. Wall Street is terrified of her"
  • "Greatest Of All Time! #GOAT twitter.com/ewarren/status/1179851099978846209 …"
  • "Russell Brand will be joining me in Los Angeles on Sept. 15"
  • "We need an uprising of consciousness #Marianne2020.com #JoinTheEvolution #WagePeace A #President who leads with #Love & #Intelligence ."
  • "I was there at his launch party in SF!"
  • "Andrew is actually the "not stuck in the past and open to new good ideas guy""
  • "read up on @AndrewYang. he's the only young candidate addressing issues that nobody else is. his politics are actually good (more than just giving every american $1,000/month), and he has a fun and transparent personality. I uhhhh, i think we ✈️ #YangGang 2020"
  • "It takes an amazing amount of strength to be this vulnerable in public. This display of emotion makes me admire @AndrewYang even more..."
  • "I've actually donated for the first time ever. New podcast with @AndrewYangVFA is up! Check it out on offthepillpodcast! #yanggang"
  • "LFG!!!!! #YANGYANG"
  • "Thanks man. Best of luck future Mr President!"
  • "Yanggang"
  • Full disclosure, I was the one who restored them. It was 50KB worth of removals and certainly a bold edit by size alone, so I reverted them (temporarily) based on WP:BRD. I view this RfC as the "Discuss" phase, and if there is strong community consensus to remove tweets as sources, then I do not oppose the re-removal of these entries. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • My first impression of this is that it lacks a third party reliable source stating that each detail is individually notable beyond the fact of endorsement.
  • The endorsement is possibly notable, but saying yah boo fifty seven ways until Sunday about it is not notable at all. Oh how I love thee is notable, that they do. Oh let me count the ways is a bit wandering, unless you can establish the particular commenters way-counting as notable. ~ R.T.G 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
OR is often bent to provide or enhance simple academic study. This seems to be a deep research of trivial twittes to highlight faces in a crowd who went woop at a certain time, and it may prove harmful to living persons. I mean, apply these precedents to the Trump endorsement page on Wikipedia and see what you get. Bending OR is for like, simple but important primary resources directly relevant to a subject. Endorsements should be directly relevant or presented as a number. People can be notable, but when you cross that notability over to something they aren't notable for, they can mislead you, and if we follow misleading resources, we mislead people, and we don't want to obstruct peoples right to disappear. None of these twittes are authorative. Collectively, they have an individual value, but if we record that value today with a fact checked number, there is no need to save the woops for playback tomorrow. Show me a Trump doing something cruel and unusual, and I'll show you a Democrat playing the other side to prove a bet that the people cannot be trusted. I mean, its my bet, and he's proved it so hard we might not recover... I've defended Trump loads of times for the purpose of revealing the other side, but I've never endorsed him. He's not my president. I'm not even American. ~ R.T.G 07:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Clarify that: OR is often bent to connect resources. To make lists, for instance. To provide "See also" sections. To clarify points. This above list however, is like listing woops, to an extent.. And it's not just the trivial nature of the individual items, it's the hotbed of emotion around ongoing events, ~ R.T.G 18:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oops didn't reply to the second part of your comment. Although I'm not sure what you mean by why that disqualifies the notability assumed by Criterion 1. It has nothing to do with the notability of the people speaking. It has to do with WP:OR, relying on Wikipedians to interpret someone's words to be an "endorsement". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

General discussion: inclusion criteria for political endorsement lists

  • Personally I'm against ANY list of political support or endorsements in any way shape or form. It's one thing to say "Senator X supported Candidate Y in the past election" in a prose article. To my mind said "lists" or categories of "support political anything" goes against what our project is supposed to stand for and be. It's far too easy to put "list 1" which supports candidate A in a more front and center position than "list 2" which supports candidate B. IMO, there's far too much political POV pushing going on throughout wiki as it is - these "lists" simply add to that, and I can NOT support such things. — Ched (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, this RfC isn't about the validity of the lists. Whether we should have them at all may be worth discussing, but at the moment we have oodles of such lists, so let's at least create some baseline rules. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The sheer number of these lists suggests there's consensus for their existence. I agree with Ched that I'm not sure how useful they are, but I think getting consensus for their exclusion would be an uphill battle that would cause more problems than it's worth. Many of these are suitable as standalone lists per WP:LISTN (FiveThirtyEight for example keeps a running list and ranking of primary endorsements), so if we prohibit inclusion in articles they will and (and maybe should) be spun out. Those that can't will probably be included in the relevant article because the community doesn't agree, and we'll just wind up back where we started or worse: fighting edit wars over stupid stuff and blocking people who could otherwise be useful contributors to politics articles. For better or worse, I think it's best to let the lists be and figure out how to curate them to minimize the negative aspects of such lists. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The US has a particular system of political parties and endorsements that doesn't always translate to other countries. I note that on UK endorsement lists for general elections, we don't cover members of a party endorsing that party, as that goes without saying in a UK context. (If a Conservative MP endorsed anyone other than Johnson in a general election, they'd be out of the party very quickly.) In comparison, intra-party endorsements dominate US endorsement lists. Likewise, when considering recent referendums, we didn't include every single SNP politician as endorsing Scottish independence: we just included the party as a whole doing so. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to note 2 things: 1. My comment above is in no way a reflection of or on Rhododendrites who I've seen around and I think they do excellent work. (I even appreciate this particular RfC/proposal) 2. I'm aware of the many lists out there - that doesn't mean I think they belong; hence my statement. I also fully aware that there's not going to be any removal of said lists. While I don't usually stick my nose into any of the political stuff - I am aware of it. I just don't care for how our project deals with it. — Ched (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It will go against WP:BLPSPS to use those social media posts outside the article for the publisher of the media posts themselves. It will also go against articles 6 and 7 of WP:DIRECTORY. Hmm.. WP:NOTEVERYTHING? ~ R.T.G 17:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I mentioned this elsewhere, but per WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field ... This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook. Endorsements are definitely considered part of "their activities". Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I also have misgivings about such lists for the reasons given above (they do belong in sections of the relevant election's article, but I believe that LISTN should apply for standalone lists). If we do decide to have them, I support all three criteria, with the assumption that criterion #3 will be played by ear as necessary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • These lists are obviously political campaigning and so should all be deleted per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, &c. People's opinions on such matters can change and so they seem too ephemeral to be maintained in a timeless, encyclopedic fashion. Also, in the US, where money talks, celebrity endorsements may be bought. For example, I often see George Clooney promoting Nespresso or Harvey Keitel promoting insurance but don't think we should make lists of such. Only in the rare cases, where the endorsement becomes a cultural icon, should we create a page for it; for example the George Foreman Grill. Andrew D. (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel that a lot of the people who have !voted support on all three criterion need to stop and think about what they're saying. Do we actually want criterion 1 and 3 to be applied on top of the WP:RS requirement? My feeling is that the only thing we should care about is whether an endorsement has coverage in reliable sources (and is referred to as an endorsement in them); I'm extremely skeptical of the way the wording of the other two criterion would seem to encourage or even require editors to substitute their own judgment for that of the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Count me as not a fan of these lists in general, but under the assumption that there will be such lists, I support all three criteria to at least whittle down more superfluous items. But I have a question about withdrawn endorsements or endorsements of multiple candidates. If someone endorsed a candidate and subsequently pulls it, does it appear as an endorsement (withdrawn) or is it wiped. Or if say Carolyn Maloney who endorsed Gillibrand, decides to go with Warren, does it appear for both? Or do you footnote the Warren endorsement that it came after Gillibrand dropped out? Would a withdrawal of an endorsement meet the same criteria? Maybe I’m just adding an issue outside the scope.TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 00:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I was in the original discussion about listing campaign endorsements (it was either 2004 or 2008), & at the time only newspaper endorsements were included, since traditionally the editorial staff of newspapers would endorse one or more candidates, & this would often give candidates an advantage. So there was a historical rationale for this. While it can be argued to include influential people or groups in this list (e.g., politicians with a national profile, groups like EMILY's List, or the NRA) because they have influence on voting, I can't think of a reason to extend coverage of endorsements beyond these sources. Honestly, capturing support comments from social media is original research; to use it to reflect any sort of strength of support (either in that social media community or society in general) requires expert knowledge to filter out the bots, spammers, & other bad-faith agents that have been proven to be out there. -- llywrch (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rfc on redirect patrolling

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Users may be interested in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol#RfC on autopatrolling redirects. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussions about articles on Noticeboards should leave a note on the relevant talk page

Latest comment: 4 years ago70 comments9 people in discussion

In WP:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors the first problem listed is "Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust." Editors who are interested in an article will typically watch the article. However if a discussion about the article takes place on a noticeboad without a notice being left at the article talk page something happens rather like what the policy says. And it most certainly has raised suspicion and mistrust in me! Editors may come to decisions about the article without having the benefit of interested people who probably know more about the topic. This can become very like secret canvassing in some cases.

I know this is typically done in many cases and for WP:ORN and WP:BLPN there are even stronger requirements, but I think it would be right to standardize this as best practice in WP:Noticeboards and those noticeboards which typically talk about article content.

This would not include neutral notifications about discussions elsewhere or quick questions which are more about an application of a policy or guideline - though if such a discussion got extended it would be more likely to come under this guideance. We've got to trust neutral notices on noticeboard to come to a relevant discussion as not canvassing! Typically notifications appear within a discussion saying something like "We don't seem to agree on this so I've raised this question at WP:XYZ#Question about...". Or it might be a separate section outlining a more major concern and saying which noticeboard they are raising the matter with. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This is just mistaken. Discussion on a community noticeboard is not "rather like" secret off-wiki communication. This proposal looks simply unworkable. If somebody mentions (say) five articles as examples of something during a noticeboard discussion, would they be obliged to visit each of those articles' Talk pages to leave a notice? Imagine the bloat. Imagine the processology and complaints from disgruntled AfD participants if some notifications were missed. The only way something like this could work would be if every participant in an AfD was required to disclose how they became aware of that AfD - but this has its own problems and my guess for the percentage chance of the community approving this is about 0%. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
You're the one who said telling editors on an article talk page about a discussion on a noticeboard might needlessy escalate to WP:DRAMA aren't you? Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how that's relevant to my point but Yes, that's one factor to take into account. Minimizing dramah is a good thing. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
And you don't think that is '"rather like" secret off-wiki communication? And may generate suspicion and mistrust? Dmcq (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dmcq: I think the issue here might be that you don't understand (or want) WP:Consensus. Having more eyes, especially the fresh ones of experienced and wise Wikipedians, is a good thing as it helps maximize consensus. Noticeboards play a key role in resolving issues and keeping and raising quality across the encyclopedia. Secret email exchanges do not build WP:Consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps wise and experienced editors would be better off hearing from people who have worked on an article and don't have to be protected from 'dramah'? And we wouldn't then have wise and experienced but ignorant editors setting off as a group to give their !vote and prejudice any others coming along by stacking the start of a discussion? Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of a paranoid WP:BATTLEGROUND frame of reference. If a discussion is "stacked" with wise opinions that's surely good. Again, it's about building consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Well it certainly helps with consensus! But I see something more akin to social bubble and groupthink, I don't think that is what the WP:Consensus policy wants. Dmcq (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
That is because you are giving this a paranoid WP:BATTLEGROUND framing. If you want to make a case that any particular group brings a damaging groupthink you need some actual, you know, evidence. So far the only thing that comes close that I've seen is the WP:ARS, as the long running drama around it demonstrates. In my experience forums come under attack (WT:MED gets this too) when they successfully maintain the WP:PAGs against bad content. So far as I can see, this is all blowback from an obviously bad article (List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming) having been deleted. But this was an in fact an example of where WP:FT/N was helpful in building consensus to a good end result. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I was specifically asked to make it general and not be picky, and I agree with that. A guideline that works in general is what is wanted. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
But "works" to what end. So far no problem has been demonstrated. You are asserting problems but I shall apply Hitchen's razor for the time being. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
As WP:CONSENSUS says "does not generate suspicion and mistrust". I think that's a nice way of putting it without prejudice for whether any particular decision was a good one or not. Dmcq (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
That is a phrase used about off-wiki communication, and is irrelevant. Back to to the point, you have produced ZERO evidence of any problem. Evidence would take the form of pointing to specific diffs, a specific AfD, or specifying something that actually happened. Without evidence of a problem this is just navel gazing. If you're saying _you_ are full of mistrust I'd suggest taking a look at WP:AGF. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll just point at the discussion here and ask editors if they are happy with articles they contribute to being discussed at length away from the talk page by people who don't want them informed about the discussion. No need for me to get involved in the minutae of particular cases or point to anywhere in particular. You can try justifying the practice more if you like! Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Re: "I will ask editors if they are happy with articles they contribute to being discussed at length away from the talk page by people who don't want them informed about the discussion" I will ask Dmcq why they want a calm reasoned discussion about accupuncture or Donald Trump to be flooded with comments by the same people who are being disruptive on the article talk page (see? two can play that game). There comes a time when the adults who are interested in fringe theories in general need to be able to calmly discuss the latest disruption at creationism without inviting a horde of creationists to join it and disrupt the noticeboard the same way they disrupted the article talk page. Some of them will find it anyway and push their POV, but do we really need to invite all of them? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
See the second point at WP:CONSENSUS#Pitfalls and errors "Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable." I think you're just digging an even deeper hole, but pray continue. Dmcq (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Getting fresh eyes from a community noticeboard is not biasing a discussion. The fact that you keep twisting the prohibitions about bad things (puppetry, secret comms) to seem as though they apply to what is actually recommended best practice, is just daft. Per WP:APPNOTE, a neutral notice on a noticeboard is explicitly not canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about for instance notes starting a discussion about changing an article without leaving a note at the article talk page. WP:APPNOTE describes leaving a note on an article talk page as an appropriate notification of a discussion. I wish to have some of those appropriate notifications described as 'good practice' rather than as 'an editor may want to draw a wider range'. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree that when an article is the SUBJECT of a noticeboard discussion, good practice is to leave a note on the article’s talk page pointing to the noticeboard discussion. That said, I don’t think leaving a note should be required. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
What would you think would be a good reason not to leave a notice on an article talk page if the article is the subject of a discussion on a noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Example: Something like "I came across article X, is this topic in scope for this noticeboard?" - why notify the article itself (especially if the answer is "no"). Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Another example... the noticeboard is discussing an issue with article A, and in the process discusses how the issue is dealt with at article B... no need to leave a note at article B. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The first would comes under "quick questions which are more about an application of a policy or guideline" and in the second article B would not be the subject of the discussion if it is just showing how something is done elsewhere. It would start being a subject if people then started saying they thought article B was wrong and should be changed. I guess there would be some problems with phrasing things well but that's always the case with guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I think the other way should be a policy: It would be very rare that it is appropriate to start a discussion at a noticeboard UNLESS extensive discussion had already occurred on the article talk page. At no time should ANY dispute be a surprise by the time it gets to the noticeboard stage. The noticeboards are for handling situations where the talk page discussion has broken down, and should never be the first recourse in solving problems. People who would be interested in a noticeboard discussion on a disputed article should already have the opportunity to be aware of the dispute. --Jayron32 13:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you think though a note should be left on an article page when it does go to a noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I would say yes... but it does not need to be anything formal. A comment along the lines of “This needs a wider audience to resolve, I have opened a discussion at WP:Xx/N (link)” is fine. The point is to let people know where the discussion is taking place (and for future reference where it took place). Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Well that's all I want and it is mostly done. I think it needs to be documented as good practice, some people think it is a bad idea as can be seen earlier in this discussion. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that letting people know things is best practice. I can't imagine a situation where we would want to make such discussions a secret, or surprise people with them. --Jayron32 15:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • All of the above said... best practice (“should”) is not the same as mandated practice (“must”). I have always been opposed to creating “rules” that a lot of people won’t follow (because they find the rule too cumbersome or simply can’t be bothered). While I would support language ENCOURAGING editors to leave notices, I would not support language saying that they MUST do so. Phrasing it as a “must” creates unwanted drama (I can easily see the wikilawyers arguing that a noticeboard discussion is “improper” and that an obvious consensus can be ignored, simply because someone neglected to leave a note). Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking of a guideline rather than policy, perhaps in the WP:TALK page? That might mean someone being snarky about it not happening somewhere but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Repeatedly and deliberately failing to follow it though could be counted as a user behavior problem. After all there are new users all the time for instance so the obvious thing then is for someone else to put in a notice and tell them doing that is the polite thing. Dmcq (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
As long as it is phrased as encouragement (best practice) and not as a “must do” requirement, I am on board. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Right now there is no tool available to easily post a notification of an article being discussed in WP:space on an article's talkpage (unlike, for example, the way the AfD tool handles appropriate notifications). If such a tool existed, I would certainly use it. It would also help with AN/ANI notices if they could automatically inform users too. As usual, I think a lot of these sorts of cultural changes can happen if you make it easier to follow the norms through software development than to go about the old-fashioned clunky way. Just a thought. jps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
A tool to make it easy would be great. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be much of a problem to people but I do agree a tool or template that made it easier would be nice. Not much point though having such a tool unless there is a guideline saying something like that shoud be done. What would be lovely I think is some template like {alert page|article}} at the discussion that would be processed as a subst and put a note into the discussion saying 'article' had been alerted to the discussion, and would put a note at the end of the talk page of the article giving the page and section where the alert page template was used. Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Not much point though having such a tool unless there is a guideline saying something like that shoud be done. I think you aren't correct about that. Rules on Wikipedia are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive. In other words, if it becomes habit then someday people write it into policy with a "everyone does it this way" note. Take the AfD notifications. Right now, it's not required that people notify the initial contributor of the AfD, but the tools do that automatically when you list an article. No one cares that this is the situation, but it certainly has increased the number of initial contributors who are notified because it is bundled in with the TW AfD tool. jps (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I rather think you will find that the Twinkle tool to nominate a page for deletion was set up after the manual procedure in WP:AfD was documented and acknowledged as best practice. Currently as far as I can see the practice of putting a notice on an article talk page about a discussion elsewhere to change it is pretty much what is normally done, but it is not documented. I don't think it is very sensible to go and ask for a tool to do that be made and put in Twinkle until the practice is documented and acknowledged as good practice. Feel free to try setting up a tool but having it as a prerequisite seems unecessary in this case. It would be nice but people manage very well currently without one. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I checked, and it wasn't. While it was required to post a notice to the article itself as well as to the listing, there was no requirement to inform the article creator (there still isn't, actually). jps (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't asking that the creator of an article be explicitly informed, where did you get that from? I was asking for a notice to be put on the article page if a discussion is liable to change it - just like AfD does. If the creator is still interested they'll still have it on their watchlist, if not then they won't. Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
You missed my point. The point is that the tool for AfD automatically notifies the creator of the article you bring to AfD even though there is no explicit requirement that a nominator do so. Likewise, a tool could be developed which would place talkpage notification for articles being discussed at a noticeboard even if no new policy is invented. jps (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:AfD says "After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors". For an AfD the creator probably would be a very interested editor. So notifying the creator is an implied best practice and wasn't brought in by the tool. For most notifications though just sticking a short note on the talk page is enough and it is all that is currently normally done. The creator will have it on their watchlist if they are interested and many wouldn't want to be pinged as well. Having a tool would be nice but I would like community agreement that doing something like that is standard practice. Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it was "brought in by the tool". I'm saying the tool does this even though there is no rule that requires it. The wording suggests that one should do it, but recommendations are not sanctionable rules, for example. The worry I have with instruction creep is bringing in Wikipedia's law enforcement regimes. I don't think anyone should deserve a sanction for failing to notify an article talkpage. Neither do I think anyone should face a sanction for notifying an article talkpage. jps (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You know things like that are not sanctionable in themselves, it is only a pattern of behavior deliberatly and repeatedly avoiding telling people about discussions where they should obviously be informed which would attract any attention beyond a request to do it in future. Is it really more important to avoid creep than to have a guideline to point at if for instance editors repeatedly and quite obstinately refuse to post a notice on article talk pages even when discussing things like nominating them for deletion? Dmcq (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
It depends on how the proposed addition was worded. If worded as encouragement, then there is no problem... if worded as requirement then yes, it becomes instruction creep and is worse than leaving things as they are (because wikilawyers will cause endless disruption by complaining that it wasn’t followed.) Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be phrased as 'best practice', a standard notification which is not just allowed but encouraged in WP:CANVASS. Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"* Comment Would probably support some wording like "If you start a section, consider leaving a notice on the Talk page of any article(s) which it discusses." Editors are then prompted to consider whether that would be a good course of action (or not). Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is completely counterproductive. If an extensive discussion about improving a page is taking place anywhere other than that page's Talk page, the system is not working correctly, and it should not be encouraged by trying to attract even more editors to that other place away from the Talk page that exists precisely for this purpose. Agricolae (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
So you'd stop noticeboards having discussions about articles? I don't think is going to fly at all. And how does one cope with a discussion spanning say two articles or on a project page about articles in its purview? It is better to try and have discussions about an article on its talk page but this reason for opposition is just unreasonable. I also note you recently raised a point at a noticeboard about Most royal candidate theory which resulted in an extended discussion and didn't even bother putting a note on the article talk page never mind encouraging editors to go there for the discussion. That isn't exactly walking the walk. Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, I agree it won't fly, since strawmen don't have wings. I would discourage noticeboards from having extensive discussions about improving a page without discussion on the relevant Talk page, but editors can decide for themselves when notifying a Talk page about discussion somewhere else is appropriate and helpful versus when it just encourages discussion to leave its appropriate venue. (I originally added something questioning your own integrity, as recompense for your questioning mine, but that would have been just as inappropriate.) Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
So you now say your 'Oppose This is completely counterproductive.' was based on a strawman, and you say it was inappropriate of me to point out that you didn't do what you said in your strawman? Well I'll follow some advice from Thomas Jefferson which somehow isn't in Wikiquote. Okay. The problem with 'helpful' in what you say is that it leaves a big hole for people's own POV to stop them informing editors who are obviously interested in and have contributed to an article. That is helpful though in nudging me into thinking WP:Canvassing probably is the best place for it. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It is in Wikiquote, once under him and once in a page about the letter with his advice. I am chastised. Dmcq (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
So you now say your 'Oppose This is completely counterproductive.' was based on a strawman. WTF? Do you even know what a strawman is? I say nothing of the sort, and you should know better. The place where editors who are obviously interested in and have contributed to an article can most conveniently see and participate in a discussion about that article is on that article's Talk page, not wherever else you want to send them to talk about it, where the discussion and any issues raised will be buried in an archive within weeks of it ending. Off with your forum shopping, then. Agricolae (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of difficulty with understanding what you're saying, would this be about right: Any talk about changing an article should be on its talk page. Such discussions elsewhere say on a noticeboard are iffy but you will sometimes start such discussions yourself. However it would be counterproductive to infom editors of the article by putting a note on the article talk page. The reason is that any such a note might bring them to the discussion elsewhere and that would be against the aim of having all the talk on the article talk page. However if there is some good reason to bring people interested in the article into the discussion about the article then perhaps a note could be left. Is that a reasonable summary? Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
No. Of course not and you know it. Again. And your argument is that any time a page is mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, the goal is to try to relocate all discussion of the page to that other location, because heaven forbid talk about a page should happen on it's Talk page. See, it's not that hard to do what you are doing, present a ridiculous and deceptive rendering of the other person's position, but it is rather pointless if you are interested in a serious discussion - oh, I see where the problem lies. Agricolae (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not telepathic. What exactly is wrong with what I said? And I agree that your description of what I said is ridiculous and deceptive. Now I will explain why. I have answered above and made even more clear below in the section 'appropriate notification' where I give some proposed wording that it would cover when the discussion might result in changes to the article. People do this quite routinely and I'm not asking for anything strange. That is not the same as 'if a page is mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia'. And I never said anything about relocating all discussion to another place. And it was you not me who said all talk about a page should happen on its talk page. Now try saying what was wrong with my understanding of what you said rather than just repeating that I know it. Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
BTW when you say things like I'm forum shopping or lack of integrity could you substantiate them please. I'm no saint but not knowing the particulars doesn't help with improvement. My talk page is the appropriate place for complaints like that but a quick note elsewhere won't worry me. Dmcq (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The forum shopping is right up above, where after first arguing ad nauseum on FT/N, and then again here, you say you are thinking WP:Canvassing probably is the best place for it. As to questioning your integrity, I decided I wouldn't stoop to your level, and I still won't. You call me a hypocrite here, but if I have any comments about your character I really should raise them on your Talk page? Rather inconsistent and self-serving, but discussing where best to attack other editors' character would be straying excessively from the topic. Agricolae (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I was asked to come to this place because of objections to having what I proposed being done without it being recognized as standard practice. As requested I never once in this discussion mentioned the noticeboard. I don't believe that is forum shopping. I am sorry to have said that "you don't walk the walk" as it is quite obvious I still do not understand your position properly about having discussions on an article talk page, why didn't you just post a neutral note on the noticeboard directing people to the article talk page if you thought it so important to not discuss elsewhere? And I give you full permission to stoop to my level on any page you desire as it is hard for me to fix a problem without knowing what it is. Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
This supposedly important 'gotcha' you think you have dug out of my edit history: for whatever reason - me explaining my position badly, you predisposed to read into it something else than it is, just two minds that work in different ways, or whatever - the necessary nuance to understand what I am saying seems to escape you, rending the whole discussion pointless. Agricolae (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone else could come along and put what you say it in more easily understood terms as I'm damned if I can make head or tail of your position yet you seem to feel very strongly about it. Dmcq (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Or alternatively, it would be nice if the person I was trying to communicate my position to wasn't seemingly being deliberately obtuse for the sake of scoring cheap debating points, because I can't make heads or tails out of what is so damned hard to understand about 'Extensive discussion of changes to a page are usually best held on that page's Talk page and not redirected to other parts of Wikipedia. Doing so seems counterproductive.' Do I have to define the long words? How about if I do it with single-syllable words, would that help: When more-than-brief talk takes place to change a page, most of the time the best place for it to take place is on the Talk page of the page that is to be changed, and if one thinks that long talk of a page at F T N should not go on (as I know you do), a note put on the Talk page will just serve to move more talk from that best place to the wrong place, and the talk in the wrong place will grow (plus this grown body of text that bears on the page change will not be saved at the Talk page where most might look for it in years to come, but will be hard to find in the depths of the large F T N file dumps), and this is not what we would want, I think. Is that better or do I still need to explain the meaning of the individual words? It may be that a 'nice' outcome is not in the cards for either of us. Agricolae (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, so basically you oppose telling editors of an article about a discussion elsewhere on changing the article and your reason is that one shouldn't normally have discussions elsewhere and people editing the article might contribute to the discussion and one wouldn't be easily able to find what they said in the future in the talk page archive. I hope I have summarized right this time and you don't get het up and start calling me names again. I'm afraid I still don't understand given your views why you start discussions elsewhere rather than leaving a note pointing to an article page so I guess I'm still missing something. You do alsorealize a note on the talk page would actually allow people to actually find the discussion in the future? Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's see . . . for individual Talk pages, the statistical mode is probably for them to have just one page (that is not very long). FT/N has a 67 page archive, so you do realize it is easier to glance at a short page than to pour through however many times your search term has been mentioned in 67 pages of archive, don't you? But that is really a secondary consideration - at its core, I oppose trying to encourage discussion to go other places. Full stop. As to the rest, go back and read what I wrote. Note in particular my use of words like 'usually' and 'most of the time' (not always) and 'extensive' and 'long' (not absolutely any) and 'best' (not must) and 'seems' (not is) and 'encourage' (not force). These did not just slip in when I wasn't looking. They were put there intentionally, all to convey the same thing, the exact thing you are missing every time you proudly parade out some post you dug out of my edit history as if it had any significance at all. What you are missing is nuance. I have stated my position so many different ways that if you still don't get it, you either aren't trying or you are trying too hard to make it something different. Agricolae (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Well you're definitely an oppose and I suppose others can judge for themselves the merits of your ideas. Dmcq (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I would have thought that was evident from me saying Oppose at the start, but I'm glad that finally got clarified for you. Agricolae (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • FWIW, from what I've seen on BLPN, although the instructions say to do it, it isn't always followed and unlike say at ANI, there's generally no real complaint when it isn't. We do get a bunch of SPAs and or just randoms and some of these are reasonable stuff, so IMO it's far more difficult to try and enforce than say ANI. Sometimes another editor will complete the requirements, but often not. I can understand there are plenty of cases where it seems pointless e.g. consider WP:BLPN#Alfred E SMith IV. I use to follow BLPN a lot and then stopped and came back to it more maybe 2 years ago. I don't believe we suggested notification in the past or at least not in such a regimented way.

    I bring this up because IMO something which has changed for the worse which I'm now also very guilty of is we tend to discuss the issue on the noticeboard even if it only concerns on article so can easily take place on an article talk page. While it's sometimes useful to discuss stuff on the noticeboard even if it only concerns a single article, especially when someone is mostly making more general suggestions on editing etc, I think we often create a lot of split and confusing discussions by doing it when it's mostly on content issues. Worse of course, is that later editors may not easily come across the discussion even if they search the archives of the article talk page. (In fact our current notification requirements don't really help for that even when followed.) I discourage editors discussing article content on editor talk pages too much for the same reason, and wonder if we should refocus BLPN for notification and centralised discussion affecting multiple articles, as IMO it was often in the past. IMO in that case it's less important that people are informed although I would still encourage it.

    I know this came about in part from FTN, if that board is far more focused on notification and centralised discussion, maybe this is one reason why notification is less important there although again I'd still encourage it.

    One area I would support mandatory notification is for RfCs and XfDs. While they are not votes, since the number of participants does affect things, I think for transparency and canvassing perception reasons, there should always be notification on the discussion when it was mentioned elsewhere, even if it was the hopefully neutral notification that is required.

    Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

    Considering some of the concerns expressed in earlier discussions, I should clarify although I support mandatory notifications in RfCs and XfDs etc when they are mentioned in a noticeboard, I am opposed to any attempts to use failure to notify to invalidate that discussion. By mandatory, my main goal is that if someone does not notify, they can be asked to do so in the future and can't just say "well it's not mandatory so I won't". While such rules-lawyering is discouraged, unfortunately it does happen. Theoretically, this means someone could be blocked for WP:disruptive editing if they refuse to, but I find it hard to believe is likely to happen. After all, with mandatory notification for AN//I, when people make mistakes, someone else generally corrects it and the editor who made the mistake is told of the requirements and most accept and try to follow in the future. Maybe it has happened, but I'm not aware of any discussion at one of the ANs about someone persistently refusing to notify. (These closest I can think of is someone persistently refusing to sign.) It's somewhat true that failure to notify at one of the AN's has different consequences in that it can not so much invalidate the discussion, but at least require it be reopened if someone is sanctioned but has something to say and didn't because they weren't aware of the discussion and whatever they say may change people's minds. But then again, this could arise even with notification if the person is away. (Less so now with the 24 hour requirement maybe.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment If such a rule is created, I would like to recommend that the text of the rule specifically and clearly state that it's purely behavioral and should not be used to devalue or discard anyone's opinion. Deletion discussions can be contentious enough already. It would not be an improvement to add a new flavor of of rules-lawyering. ApLundell (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS is a behavioral guideline, you want to start reiteratiung that within such a guideline? I'm told it is creep to say giving out such notices is good practice, We're supposed to describe best practice in guidelines and doing this would help greatly with a number of problems even currently being debated here. Yes it is possible that it might get used in rules lawyering if a case of canvassing is particularly bad or it is repeatedly done. What are we supposed to do in such cases? Wiki lawyers already argue that they are fine having nice cosy in-group meetings because this is not written down anywhere. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I thought I was clear, but If the proposed rule is created, I believe it should not be possible to use it as justification to invalidate deletion discussions or to discount editor's opinions and !votes. Further, if the proposed rule is created, I would like it to very clearly state whether or not it is allowable to use it as justification to invalidate deletion discussions or to discount editor's opinions and !votes. (Even if the answer to that question is not what I would wish it to be.) ApLundell (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

“Notes” Section revamp.

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

What I’ve noticed in some articles in Wikipedia is that the ‘Notes’ section usually has information that should be present in “References” instead. I believe it’s time we should revamp the meaning of the notes section in Wikipedia. These are my proposals:

We should use the Notes section in articles to let the readers know about something that otherwise wouldn’t be suitable in hatnotes, such as “This article uses both the GMT timezone in some sections and the EST time zones in others where it is suitable” etc. Although this is present in some articles, surprisingly quite a lot of articles don’t do this.

As a result of that (and bear in mind what I am about to say it is only to see the views of those that will partake in the debate on the following point I’ll be raising), we should also move the Notes section near the top of the page so the reader is aware of any information contained in the Notes section before reading the article. Neon 12:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialNeon (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A move like that disrupts both the format and the flow of the articles. Notes are important clarification or direction, but they are a sideshow to the main subject, and are relegated near the bottom for a reason. I do not think we should mess with a machine that works. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The primary use of a Notes section that I've seen is for explanatory footnotes related to the article's subject. I'm not sure if you're suggesting to limit Notes to meta-article information. I disagree with moving its position; footnotes are usually written to be read in context. isaacl (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@OfficialNeon: What I’ve noticed in some articles[which?] in Wikipedia[where?] is that the ‘Notes’ section usually[when?] has information that should be present in “References” instead.[citation needed] Discussing this in the abstract makes it a strawman proposal, which is pointless to discuss. What articles are you speaking of, what are their topics, how many are there that fit this pattern you describe? Then we can have an informed discussion about any changes that might need to be made to them. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

More html

Latest comment: 4 years ago26 comments18 people in discussion

Make it so that trusted users can insert raw html into Wikipedia. (enable $vgRawHtml)

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

For what purpose? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Things like embedding maps, adding more programming languages for bot development, etc.
E Super Maker (😲 shout) 20:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems problematic in a working Wiki. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Why would it be problematic? It could be a user right. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikitext should be editable by others. There would need to be a concrete proposal relating to improving a specific article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@E Super Maker: This would require the same trust level as interface administrators. That group currently has only 12 users, for good reasons. Any HTML would be a burden on those users to maintain, so it would have to be really important. Many pages already contain embedded maps; click on the globe icon next to the coordinates on the upper-right corner of, e.g. Death Valley. See WP:WMA. What do you mean by programming languages for bot development? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a horrid idea per mw:$wgRawHtml and mw:Cross-site scripting. It will open up a massive security vulnerability. If the existing, allowed HTML tags are not enough, you should seriously reconsider the approach you're taking. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

<blink>Please, no.</blink>. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

<marquee>Oppose.</marquee> SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure those both don't work because browsers dropped support for them, not because they are arbitrary HTML. Arbitrary HTML that doesn't work includes <a> and <img>. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
That was my point :D SportingFlyer T·C 13:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Mixing encoding formats creates complex and sometimes impossible to resolve ambiguities. We already mix percent-encoding, HTML encoding and wikitext encoding in URLs (potentially all three in the same URL) in violation of RFC 3986, it's crazy. -- GreenC 16:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There's so many things I could do if I could insert my own html into Wikipedia pages! Even without Javascript I could do marvels with css. Fiendishly rubs hands together with glee. 😈 H̷̨̺͎̖͈̺̦̳͉͕̲̓̈̕͜è̶̡̠̤̫̭͖̗̗̐̀͗͂͌́́͗ ̴̜̼̖̻̲̃̑̏̽̑͠c̵̩͕̭͓̥̯͉͉̪̖̈́̽̾̉͝͝õ̷̧͓͍̺̱̋̑͜m̶̦̅ẻ̵̖̓́̉͊͐̇͜s̸̪͒̂̚ ̴̛͇̜͙͙̤̣̰͎̪͔͈̻͓̟̩̏͒̐̒͂͘͜͠ͅ 1 ǝǝɥ ǝǝɥ ǝH So yes my full support (no not really) 12 is quite enough people with that right. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1 disrupting text format esacaped. — xaosflux Talk 17:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dmcq: You can add CSS, with some minimal constraints. See WP:TemplateStyles. --Yair rand (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, looks enough for me to put in a css game without risking getting blocked :-) Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dmcq: 12 is quite enough people with that right. Actually it's 11 people and 1 bot, an even more frightening notion. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

<blinquee>Please no.</blinquee> - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, how about it be an ability for template administrators? E Super Maker (😲 shout) 20:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@E Super Maker: Are you familiar with Cross-site scripting? How many editors, exactly, do you want to have full control of your account, or do all the privacy-violating stuff here, or, if your browser isn't quite up to date, install malware on your computer? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow, in the above post it states that only template administrators would have this ability. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 21:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
E Super Maker, there are no "template administrators" because there is no such role. There are 10 interface administrators who were chosen for their ability & to minimise the risk to users, and 193 template editors exactly none of whom were chosen after an assessment of their raw html skills. If you want to pursue this further, can I suggest going here. Cabayi (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it is too easy for someone malicious to set up underhanded Javascript. Many people will have heard of the International Obfuscated C Code Contest, but much more worrying are the entries in the Underhanded C Contest. Though I guess even straightforward links make it easy enough to delude lots of readers and get their details. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
E Super Maker, which specific HTML tags are currently disallowed that you would like to use? Enterprisey (talk!) 19:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Far too many vulnerabilities to accept raw HTML onto Wikipedia, see Arbitrary code execution. dibbydib 💬/✏ 08:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A new warning

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

A lot of times, I've seen people break wikitext (e.g. "[[Example]"), templates, and other things while editing with the source editor. Should there be a new warning on Wikipedia for this in the style of warning templates (e.g. {{uw-vand1}})? (Note: These will be treated as good-faith if implemented) dibbydib 💬/✏ 08:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Do we use other warnings for "typos" ? - FlightTime (open channel) 08:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any need for a template. It's just as easy to write a few words informing an editor of the problem as it is to remember the name of a template. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah... in fact, leaving a non-templated (hand writing) message would be more helpful than a template, as you could explain HOW the edit “broke” the article’s formatting. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
User:GreenMeansGo/WP:Death by template GMGtalk 20:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If they're clearly editing in good faith, you could always, you know, help them rather than warning them. "Hey, when you edit a foo, remember to change the bar as well. I fixed it on example, take a look at this diff to see what I mean." How difficult is that? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Often the reason I don't bother offering any help at all is that I don't have time. I don't think it's fair to characterize all templates as warnings or rebukes. They can be but they can also be educational, informational, or welcoming. The alternative to a template can sometimes be nothing at all except but an edit summary new users aren't even aware exists, or having their talk post ignored and not knowing why. User:GreenMeansGo/WP:Death by template doesn't seem to be complaining about the existence of specialized templates, but the overuse of them. Or daring to use them at all. It's really a different issue. One of the central complaints is their generic nature. When they aren't specific to the issue, the new user is left scratching their head. Adding a specific template to match the precise issue is an improvement. And the existence of more accurate templates doesn't prevent anyone from exhorting editors to write personalized notes. I do often write personalized notes but I can't always.

My problem with having so many UW templates is finding the one I need when I need it. They're not as searchable as I'd like and the selection trees for them can be slow and clunky. Which can take so much time that I skip it altogether. But that too is not a reason not to create more accurate templates for common issues. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

But, in this case, does it really take you more than a second or two to write, "your edit to this article broke the formatting"? Usually the reason will be obvious but you could add "because it did ...". Is that really something that anyone doesn't have time to do, and would that time would be reduced by having a template? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but that's an example of one of those times when a short personal note is all it takes. But that can also be interpreted as terse and rude. Or "broke template" is too jargony to make sense. Or they need links to help pages explaining how the formatting is supposed to work. All this could apply to any "to template or not to template" question. This is more a question of who would create this new template, what are they working on now, and is it more important than this? Or even if adding another template is actually harmful in some way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I prefer presupplied templates where possible, because it avoids getting stick from people who won't be told. Though they then resort to WP:DTTR, usually in a spectacular display of thinking that's a refutation and their bad behaviour is fine - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The proposer here made it clear that this is proposed for good-faith edits that break formatting. Obviously deliberate such action is vandalism, for which we already have escalating templates. Are there really people that are capable of contributing to an English-language encyclopedia, but can't write a sentence or two on someone's talk page without a template? And I can't imagine any circumstance where a personal message would be interpreted as terse and rude, but a templated message would not. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on partial blocks

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Grant to boost excerpts

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! I'd like to announce a rapid grant I'm requesting to improve, spread and boost excerpts on the English Wikipedia and five other wikis. As explained on the grant page, excerpts are a form of content reuse similar to selective transclusion but easier to use and with greater potential. I hope you'll consider taking a look at the grant proposal and leave a comment there. Thanks! Sophivorus (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Protect sections?

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

I noticed on the article "2016 United States presidential election in Arizona" there has been some vandalism to the number of votes in Maricopa County. This leads me to the proposal of protecting a specific section (but not the entire article). I don't think there really needs to be changes to the results by county section. I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem technically feasible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
We've wondered this before, but people can, and do, frequently edit sections (even assuming you weren't deliberately messing with them) so tracking stuff to them is tough. It's related to the difficulty that section watchlisting and some of the suggested talk page changes cause. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a rather long time, but I could find no simple way to implement it. The only idea I got was that we can create different subpages for each section, transclude all of them in the article, protect the article's main page (which has no text in it, just some transclusions) and protect each subpage separately, if needed. Maybe an edit filter can check the edit summary and prevent all edits that have the section's name in their summary, but that's easy to bypass. The first method takes a lot of time and effort and I find it unnecessary. Different sections are usually connected to each other, so one will most likely need to protect different subpages. I prefer a usual "article-wide" protect, as the article is likely to be vandalized again, and not necessarily in that specific section. Ahmadtalk 21:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If a section of an article has been subject to frequent vandalism, would it not make more sense to protect the whole article? If we only protected sections, would that not invite vandals to vandalise other sections of the article in question? Vorbee (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, what'll stop them from editing the entire article, and simply removing the section in question entirely, to be replaced with a different one containing the edits they want to make? "A section" is not a discrete unit in the content database, even the section-editing tools are really hacks. (They effectively open the article for editing, then just hide all the bits _outside_ the section in question. The edit is still performed page-wide, which is why it appears in the article history with a section title in the edit summary.) I don't see how it would be technically feasible to protect or otherwise manage any unit of content smaller than an article. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for a section called "Wikipedia: Articles for merging"

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I wonder whether it is worth putting in a proposal "Wikipedia: Articles for merging"? At Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, there are sometimes proposals for merging, rather than deleting. I have been wondering whether the Tanita Tikaram singles Yodelling Song and Wonderful Shadow are worthy of their own articles, but I would support a merge with the article on the album Lovers in the City rather than a full deletion. Vorbee (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

We already have that. See Merger Notice Board. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 08:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User: GenQuest - I do not think I had seen that. Vorbee (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Appropriate notifications

Latest comment: 4 years ago48 comments11 people in discussion

WP:CANVASS should list some notifications as best practice to send, as well as its current 'An editor who may wish to draw a wider audience...' for the appropriate notifications it lists. Dmcq (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Changed to definitive RfC and reworded slightly. The main impetus is to help support what WP:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors says. The discussion above #Discussions about articles on Noticeboards should leave a note on the relevant talk page shows I think there are real problems which might "generate suspicion and mistrust". Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Notifying users when there is a discussion about them has become obvious best practice but I don't know where or if that is written down anywhere, Also putting a note in a discussion when a question is put to a noticeboard has become fairly standard practice and is required on some noticeboards. I think WP:CANVASS is the right place for such notifications as not informing obviously interested and easily contacted parties can be considered as biasing a discussion.

I propose to add the following to WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification to document notifications which should normally be done:

At the beginning put:

It is best practice to have a message left about a discussion at:

  • The talk page of a user mentioned if there is a behavior concern.
  • The talk page of one or more named aricles which might be affected.
  • A relevant project page, noticeboard or other Wikipedia page if it might affect their remit.
  • Another discussion if it follows closely from the other discussion.

Neutral notifications are not counted as discussions nor are straightforward questions which don't extend further.

This would be followed by the current text

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the requirement to notify users; there's a big box at the top of pages like WP:ANI that states, and I quote, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." It's in red. The word "must" is underlined. Short of broadcasting the requirement directly into people's brains using the secret government chip we've all been implanted with, I'm not sure what else should be done to let people know of such a requirement. --Jayron32 16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I know about that box - was putting that box there based on a policy or guideline? If so I think the business here about articles and other transparency should probably go in the same place. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It was based upon being a thing we should always do.--Jayron32 04:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Would't it be wonderful (or dull!) if we all agreed on things that we should always do! Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • !votes from discussions As far as I can see there is myself, @Blueboar, Nil Einne, and Jayron32: supporting, and @Alexbrn, Guy Macon, jps, and Agricolae: opposing in the discussion above. I'd like a few more contributing to get a wide consensus so I'm making this an RfC. Are you in favor of being able to have a quiet discussion about changing an article free from the drama of having editors from an article being discussed, or do you think it is good practice to involved them in all such discussions to avoid canvassing type problems? Dmcq (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
FYI - my “support” is marginal, at best, and hedged with caveats... I don’t object to adding a brief note in policy encouraging editors to leave notifications... but would oppose any language that would imply that doing so is required. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Or to state it in an equally 'neutral' manner, would you insist that discussion to change a page be intentionally diverted away from the Talk page so that it metastasizes to anywhere else on Wikipedia that the page has been mentioned, or would you prefer discussion remain focused on the Talk page of the article it concerns. Or, and here is a novel thought - we actually state it neutrally rather than only pretending to: Do you think that notification on a Talk page when that article page is being discussed in other fora be made preferred practice, or do you oppose making that policy? That is neutrally stating the question. Agricolae (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Discssions about improving articles do occur on noticeboards, and often for very good reason. As far as I can make out you want to deprecate the current practice of leaving a note on an article talk page and only leave one if editors at a discussion think there is a good reason to invite editors of an article. I think it would be better you raise a proposal to that effect rather than just implementing it personally as what you say is not common practice on most noticeboards. That would give you a good opportunity too to show why there would be no consensus or canvassing issues with what you say. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    And as far as I can make out, you are utterly incapable of neutrally summarizing the position of anyone with whom you disagree. It is just one absurd strawman after another. The only question that remains is whether you aren't even trying, or if you are trying hard not to. Agricolae (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Well lets see if some more more editors can come along and give their opinion on the matter. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • PLEASE - comment on the proposal, not other editors. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, generally on WP:CREEP and WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY grounds. Whether something is canvassing or not has at least as much to do with exact wording and with personal rationale for exactly which pages were picked/excluded, as it has to do with which pages actually were notified. Furthermore, I strenuously object to the wikiproject-related language in here. Wikiprojects have no "remit". They are not stand-alone organizations, they do not have any authority, they are not walled gardens. They are simply pages at which editors with common interests assemble some resources; the primary purpose of wikiprojects is article assessment and peer review. The abuse of them as "canvassing farms" – places to gin up support for (or opposition to) this proposal or that among editors that one hopes will be like-minded has already gone too far for too long. The idea of enshrining this anti-WP:CONSENSUS lobbying and wikipolitical activism as something explicitly sanctioned by policy is not going to fly. Sometimes it is useful to notify a wikiproject's talk page of a discussion that seems like it's within the declared scope of the project, and this is generally when expert or at least topically knowledgable input is needed. And sometimes wikiprojects on "side B" of an issue need to be notified if someone has been lobbying projects on "side A" already, to ensure that a WP:FALSECONSENSUS doesn't result. But broadly and generally, no. If we really notified wikiprojects of every relevant discussion, every wikiproject's talk page would be a firehose of nothing but thread pointers, few of them ever neutral. WP:WATCHLISTs exist for a reason. WP:RFCs and the WP:FRS exist for a reason. When it comes to important matters that will affect many articles, WP:VPPOL (or WP:VPPRO, depending on the nature of the discussion) and WP:CENT exist for a reason. Aside from the wikiprojects stuff: There is no need to codify "canvassing exceptions" for notice to the talk pages of clearly affected users or articles; that's standard practice and we already know it is not canvassing. Nor do we need to mention noticeboards. Noticeboards are not internal-discussion "link farms"; they are for dispute resolution between small subsets of editors. So, most discussions should never be "advertised" at them. And "Another discussion if it follows closely from the other discussion"? That's backwards. If, say, an RfC opened last week leads to a new discussion this week, the new discussion does not need to be notified of the old one. And if the old one is actually old, it needs no notice of the new one, though people are free to make one. If it's not really old, then the new discussion should probably be closed and redirected back to the original, unresolved one, per WP:MULTI and WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I quite explicitly said it was not about notifying about every mention, only discussions about changing named pages. And I haven't the foggiest how informing editors who watch a page about discussions which may result in changes to it can be counted as canvassing! The notifications mentioned are the commonsense ones! The bureaucracy is needed because as you say and I believe some places have become anti-consensus lobby groups and don't do them. The effect of this RfC would be to say to them that if they start discussing changing a page they should put a notification on the associated talk page. No it won't get rid of the lobby groups - but it will expose them to some light. They probably were set up for a good reason originally and still do some good - exposure to outsiders would help reduce the groupthink that infests such places and led to them becoming anti-consensus lobby groups. Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The business about direct follow-on discussions is to help deal with forum shopping. At the moment we can complain about forum shopping - but editors who have just yesterday discussed the business should be notified if the discussion then moves elsewhere. Complaining that something is forum shopping is not enough to tell interested editors what is happening. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
BTW this would not affect boards where just a neutral notification is placed like the various RfC or AfD lists. They might be used to canvass editors but the problem of forming like-minded in-groups is far less when there is no discussion on the board. Dmcq (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with SMcCandlish that it just is not needed, per WP:CREEP and the like. The existing guidance about canvassing is sufficient to delineate the difference between canvassing and appropriate notification, and that's what we need. We don't need to put unavoidably incomplete lists of examples on top of it, and there are always going to be cases where it will come down to common sense. Users who cannot figure it out probably shouldn't be here. By the way, I came to this RfC from the message at WT:CANVASS, which I think was a reasonable way to notify interested editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Well I can see this RfC is starting to lose. So you came here via a short notice at WP:CANVASS which is the talk page of the page for which a change is proposed. That is exactly what this proposal describes as best practice and you say is a reasonable way to notify interested readers. There are noticeboards which engage in dscussions like this and where they quite adamantly refuse to give such a notice as standard and in fact hardly ever do. And we have discussions on this page about boards having such discussions and the effects being described as bad. But you say trying to do something which migh ameliorate the effect is creep? That what they do is fine by you? That you would have been quite happy if no note like that had been placed in WT:CANVASS and the same for for other pages you are interested in? Is CREEP really a good and sufficient reason for not trying to fix such boards instead of editors just uselessly complaining at them without any clear backup in a policy or guideline? Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd have to see evidence that such possible misunderstandings of appropriate notifications are a genuine and pervasive problem, as opposed to clueless comments or comments made in bad faith that are readily dismissed. For example, are editors getting blocked for making appropriate notifications? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I know your noticeboard has to deal with a lot of crap, and that's probably why you and a few others from there are opposing this proposal, in fact I see only one who isn't from there. But so do lots of other places dealing with China or Israel or Donald Trump or lots of other subjects. But your lot have gone rogue, the guideline is fine but they go far beyond it and seem to think Wikipedia should only have true things rather than being an encyclopeaedia of notable topics. I believe if they followed the norms in the rest of Wikipedia it would curb the in-group mentality characterized by talk of being adults and not having the children disrupt your conversations and having jokes disparaging the topics and the actions of going off as large group to tidy up or delete topics and practically ignoring the editors there and listing lots of policies against them without saying in what way they actually violate a policy or guideline. Saying creep is just a way of dismissing any idea of reforming the noticeboard and denying the problem. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Here's the thing. No actual evidence of any problem has been presented, just vague grumbling which seemed rooted in upset about the consensus at this AfD. Alexbrn (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't expect you to disagree with all the other people who came along with you to that or see a problem with what you do there or elsewhere. I am pointing out what you do and WP:CONSENSUS says about off-wiki conversations " Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust." I consider it wiki-lawyering to say that what is done at that noticeboard is fine and dandy because it is on-wiki even if the people there are very opposed to putting a notice onto an article's talk page about a discussion about changing an article the editors there are working on. Dmcq (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion on a community noticeboard is not (and is not like) "off-wiki communication". Still no evidence of a problem has been presented. Evidence would take the form of specifying an instance where something problematic happened, with some supporting diffs. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
And you don't thingk the next point in WP:CONSENSUS is applicable either "Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter"? Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Dmcq, WP:CONSENSUS is correct. But (for about the sixth time) there is no evidence of any problem to fix. Getting noticeboard attention is a really excellent way to improve and broaden consensus and benefit from the editors' wisdom on offer there. I am beginning to suspect the reason you are not providing evidence of a problem having occurred, is because there is no such evidence. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
So you'd be happy if you were working on an article and then a bunch of people descened on it with fixed ideas because they'd been discussing it elsewhere without you having any straightforward way of finding out about it or contributing? You think that is perfectly okay? Dmcq (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
In the hypothetical case I'm being fooled into citing a shit source, I would be very happy to be told I was using shit sources. This way I could take corrective action and write based on reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Dmcq, Has this ever happened? You have produced no evidence whatsoever. It would seem incredibly arrogant to claim to see into editors' minds and know that had a "fixed opinion" of any kind. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Now you're wanting me to raise this to ANI to prove a case before you'll acknowledge a problem. Editors from articles are kept away because the noticeboard does not want their input. How can anybody expect the editors from the noticeboard to then go along and have their minds changed by these editors at an article? Dmcq (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to prove a case but to provide evidence. You've not done that: no diffs, nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Another couple of editors from that noticeboard opposing editors from articles being in their discussions. I raised this here and deliberately did not mention it to see what the wider opinion in Wikipedia is but a bunch of you come along and stack it with opposes. Dmcq (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This sounds like one of those things which seems reasonable in broad strokes but upon closer inspection becomes a bureaucratic exercise in rule proliferation. (This !vote might get me labeled as a running dog of The Noticeboard, because I read and comment there occasionally, but I noticed this discussion because I was checking the Village Pump in order to procrastinate on the day's work.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: Why do you think this is just a bureaucratic exercise? What do you see as going wrong with it? Do you disagree with me when I see a definite consensus and groupthink problem when people talk about not having people from an article along so the adults can discuss it, and then go along as a group to change it? Or do you think that is okay in this case? Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Because you've been pushing this line in multiple venues for literally years with no traction - David Gerard (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I did push for something to be done about ten years ago when the noticeboard make a complete messof another article and not since. By your reasoining no AfD's should be done for ten years after the last one failed. I notice the article has recovered from the attentions of the noticeboard but they still try and do stupid things there which go far beyond the guidelines and try and make Wikipedia only have truth not notable things. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you disagree with me when I see a definite consensus and groupthink problem ... um, I suppose I do, because I find no solid evidence of an actual groupthink problem, just an assertion that one exists. (I am doubtless influenced on this point by the fact that a lot of my interactions on The Noticeboard have been me disagreeing with other editors there.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If you see no problem with discussing changing articles without letting the regular editors know about it and then going along with the people you discussed it with to edit the article? And despite that you think you are open to consensus on the artcle discussing it with theose editors? You really think that follows the policies outlines in WP:5P4 "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility"? Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
In order to see a problem, I have to see a problem. Sweeping generalities without evidence don't cut it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It would be really nice if somebody actually gave a good reason rather than 'creep' for not documenting something that is done pretty much as standard everywhere else. Or pointed at something they thought wasn't standard or should be phrased differently. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I know that your proposal is a good-faith one, and I know from experience how disappointing it can be to have one's proposal regarded negatively by other editors. Of course, it's nothing personal. But I honestly think that editors have given substantive reasons beyond "creep", and it doesn't help your case to badger everyone who responds to the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard:, you are one of the few editors in a while at that noticeboard I've noticed who've left a notification at an artice talk page. Why do you do this thing that you oppose having documented as good practice? Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Well I can see this is not going anywhere. I'm sorry about that. I'll continue using WIkipedia sometimes as it is useful but it is no longer something I can identify with or cotribute to so bye folks. Dmcq (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Could make an antivirus bot here

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

what about this? 2804:14C:5BB5:8076:15B7:1E14:F2A4:5174 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2804... can you point to some specific examples of what you would want it to do? — xaosflux Talk 03:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Have there been any instances where a virus has affected Wikipedia, or has affected readers because of something they have downloaded from Wikipedia? Certainly the former case, and probably the latter, should be dealt with at the level of MediaWiki development rather than by a bot. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On the use of deprecated sources

Latest comment: 4 years ago151 comments43 people in discussion

There has been a long-brewing war over what to do with deprecated sources at Wikipedia. Several ANI threads have been spent, lots of accusations of bad-faith have been leveled at both sides of the dispute, and it's clear we need some clarification on how to handle the situation in general. I'd like to have a clean discussion on what to do going forward on these matters. I definitely do not think we need to have any discussion here on what has happened earlier, on individual user behavior, and on personal attacks, which is where most of these discussions have gone. I'd like to set this up as a "proposal and support/oppose" format. Users should feel free to add their own proposals to the list if they are significantly different than other proposals, and we can use the proposals with the most support as guidance for clarifying Wikipedia policy on these matters. I'll get the ball rolling with a proposal of my own, with no prejudice against others creating their own proposals.

(Proposed by User:Jayron32 on 26 November 2019.)

For info on what sources are deprecated and how they become that way, see Wikipedia:Deprecated sources -- Beland (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Deprecated sources should be handled as follows

Text which is cited to deprecated sources should be not usually be treated differently than unsourced text. What that means for how to deal with them is as follows:

  • No distinction is made in policy between adding a source new or keeping an existing source. For the purpose of policy, adding a source which is deprecated is treated exactly the same as keeping an existing source after it is deprecated, and WP:BURDEN applies equally in both cases. No person may be required to provide a source in the place of deprecated source; if a person wishes a new source to be added, it is the burden of that person to provide their own source.
  • Deprecated sources can be removed, with an edit summary "removing deprecated source".
  • If a deprecated source is to be used or kept, as an exception (either IAR or because a specific exception is noted in the relevant discussion that deprecated the source), then WP:BURDEN applies to the person who wants to use or keep the deprecated source, and they should start a talk page discussion explaining their desire for the exception. Consensus is required to use or retain the deprecated source, for the specific use, and if the addition or retention of the deprecated source is contested, it is to be removed unless and until consensus explicitly allows for its use.
  • Any text that is only sourced to a deprecated source is treated as though it had no source to begin with.
  • Removal of deprecated sources should not be done with fully automated tools/bots.
  • The person who finds a deprecated source being used in the article has several options for how to deal with the text that was cited to the source. No preference is given to ANY of these options, and no accusations of misbehavior or bad faith should be leveled against anyone who does any of the following responses.
    1. Remove the source and leave the text. The information that was formerly cited to a deprecated source just does not have that source anymore; the rest of the text is left unchanged.
    2. Tag the deprecated source with the {{better source}} tag and leave it in the article.
    3. Replace the deprecated source with a better source.
    4. Remove the deprecated source and add a {{cn}} tag.
    5. Remove the deprecated source along with the text it is citing.
  • The guidance for when to tag, and when to remove text, is already given in existing policy, and text which has a deprecated source is treated no differently from any uncited text otherwise, that includes policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:BLP, WP:BURDEN and the like.
  • The fact that an editor has taken any one of the above actions does not preclude later editors from taking other ones; for example if one editor removes a bit of text along with the source, another editor may add it back with an appropriate source. Or, for example, if one editor tags the deprecated source with the {{better source}} tag, another editor may remove it entirely. Normal proscriptions against edit warring exist for disputes over removal/retention. WP:BRD should be used, and when there is a dispute, the disputed text and source are to remain removed unless consensus exists to return it, just as with any disputed text that has no source.

Support/oppose on Proposal 1

  • Support as proposer. --Jayron32 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with changeOppose I believe proposal 3 is much more in line with what I'd like. If a deprecated source is found to be reliable for a particular citation there should be a way of marking it as such - e.g. to link to a talk page discussion where there was a consensus saying it was okay for the purpose. This is to stop people just removing things that others think are fine. Dmcq (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I can add nothing really to the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support proposal 1 - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposed - there is no such thing as a “non-source”... just limits to a source’s use. While deprecated sources are GENERALLY not reliable, there are SPECIFIC circumstances where they are. As an example, the RFC that deprecated the Daily Mail noted that it was reliable in the past, and so historical usage might be an exception. Hell, even Mein Kamph is reliable in very limited situations. If nothing else, deprecated sources are reliable for direct quotes taken from the source (ie when used as a primary source). Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but should be summarized more effectively.
Unless special circumstances applies (such as WP:ABOUTSELF), a statement backed by a deprecated source should be treated as no different than a statement backed with no source.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative support - I think this proposal is thorough, well-written, and well thought out. The only reason I hesitate to fully embrace it is because there are some scenarios where a 'bad' source might be acceptable. For example, there is some debate about whether a Daily Mail article is valid as a source for a topic closely related to the Daily Mail (e.g. "XXX is the new chief editor of the DM"). Michepman (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support if and only if editors who find untagged text cited to deprecated sources are not allowed to remove the source or the text themselves solely on the ground that the source is deprecated (1 or 5 in the list above). No objections to 2, 3 or 4 on the list as these either improve the encyclopedia, or give other editors the chance to improve the encyclopedia before removal. Text cited to deprecated sources is NOT unsourced and shouldn't be treated as such. Iffy★Chat -- 18:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (5) is, in my opinion, just leaves the current problem present so we still end up with the same edit wars as we have been seeing on this subject. I think we need a solution that gives a strong preference to content staying on Wikipedia at least for a time when the only problem with it is a previously non-deprecated source becoming deprecated. I do not like givining editors authority to do mass deletions of content (which is the current modus operandi of some editors) that other users have taken time to craft when the content was not originally problematic. (1) is _effectively_ the same as (5) since an editor can simply remove the citation, then come back a day or two later and remove the content for having no citation. For the same reason as I dislike (5), I dislike (1). We should not be deleting content without strong reasons, and using a previously fine source that has since been deprecated is not a legitimate reason for summary deletion of content. I have created Proposal 3 to try to address these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 08:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, although I feel automated removal should be allowed when there's a clear pre-existing consensus for it. This is in-line with the current meaning of depreciation and would fit our normal editing procedures. Individual removals can be tweaked by people who are watching the article (eg. by replacing the content using a better source, if it was removed); if there are not enough people watching the article who care, it is better to err on the side of caution and stick with removal of content with an unreliable source anyway, since articles without many people watching them can become dumping-grounds for nonsense if we're not careful. --Aquillion (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose of no benefit to the readers of the encyclopedia, in many cases useful material is being completely lost or incorrectly modified during mass rapid edit sprees. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This gist of this seems to be that statements supported by deprecated sources are worse than having no source at all. Maybe true sometimes, but I suspect that if I were to make a large number of edits removing uncited material I would be quickly told to slow down, use some judgement, and engage on the talk page despite WP:BURDEN. Also, the best place to determine if use of a deprecated source is appropriate is on the talk page, knowing and having the option to change the cited material, not a generalized RFC.—eric 19:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I would suggest three changes, however:
  1. Introduction of a new tag: {{deprecated kept}}, where the rationale for keeping a deprecated source can be documented.
  2. Allowing for a source to be kept without TP discussion if an editor reviewed it, tagged it and provided a Policy-based justification within the tag for keeping it.
  3. Guiding editors toward deletion + tagging instead of just deletion, and towards {{deprecated inline}} instead of {{cn}}. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in general. Obviously there should never be any bar to simply replacing a poor source with a better one, whether or not the poorer source is deprecated. Even if this has consensus it would not change my current practice of tagging rather than removing in the first instance if the content is probably encyclopaedic and unlikely to be controversial. It would allow for bot removal at some later date, which is an interesting idea. Guy (help!) 01:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose number 1 and 4 are dumb ideas. They are almost never going to make an article any better but will instead make it worse, making it harder to find an actual source. I have no objections to 2, 3 and 5, although of course we need to take consider carefully how their interact with our other norms on challenging uncited content including mass removals etc. I'm also unsure why this proposal doesn't consider the use of templates like {{deprecated inline}} or even new tags to better emphasise it's a better source. As I've remarked before, if editors are really that worried about readers being confused even by tagging, we could always remove the link, or completely hide the source to readers without messing around with editors by making it difficult for them to fix an article, for no apparent reason. Whatever the case, it would be better if this doesn't pass if it's going to suggest 1 and 4 is okay when they're clearly not, and have never been supported by any policy or guideline, or simple common sense. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because it is unclear, in particular it doesn't account for timescales. "Deprecated sources can be removed, with an edit summary "removing deprecated source". could be interpreted in two distinct ways (at least): either "Careful consideration of the source and the article is made by an editor, doing some editing. If nothing better can be achieved (which then raises the question of why we'd keep content which is not merely unsourced, but unsourceable.) then remove it. Maybe remove the content too. But this proposal, and that statement can also be interpreted as "Run a 'bot across the whole corpus, and just strip the lot immediately. (With WP:MEATBOT if there's a proscription against literal automation.) Because one editor thinks they don't like a particular domain name, or the string /blog/ in a URL. That's unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but I would rearrange the five recommendations in order of preference, ie 3,5,2,4,1. Reyk YO! 06:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The concept of deprecated sources is fundamentally flawed because our citation of sources is context-dependent and so each case has to be judged on its merits. Also, it is our general policy that Wikipedia is itself not reliable and so a straw poll cannot be relied upon to determine the validity of sources in a broad-brush way. See also WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, mostly. In general, deprecated sources should be removed immediately, on sight. I'm not sure whether it's better to leave the unsourced text or not. I would support some sort of automated removal, with a proper scope and protections in place. – Levivich 03:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -ish? Only insofar as this is kind of a do-nothing proposal (in a good way), in that it hews pretty close to WP:Editing policy. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:CANTFIX sum up what to do and not do in more or less the same way as this proposal, just without so many words. The verifiability policy is at the root of it: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article" via WP:UNSOURCED. Barring BLP violations, copyright violation, or other urgent problems requiring action, we need to think about the fact that we're building an encyclopedia, and that's why we have the editing policy. It says to make forward progress we have to keep salvageable content and give it time to be improved by someone after you. We can't establish any rule more specific than "context matters" because unsourced material on a hot topic with hundreds of editors, like Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, could have a half-life of minutes, deleting unsourced material after one quick search. Problematic parts of an article on an obscure, slow-developing topic in the distant past or in a fictional universe could wait years for each tick of the editing clock to advance. If you're interpreting this proposal in a way that contradicts editing policy, the no, no support for that from me. Follow editing policy; it's a good policy that has stood the test of time because it is robust and flexible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Everything in this proposal is already covered by existing policy, since deprecated sources are questionable sources that have been identified through an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard. Of course, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS apply to deprecated sources as well as any other source. Aside from rare and unusual cases, the 5 listed responses are what editors commonly use for any unreliable source, and deprecated sources are no exception. I agree with Reyk's order of preference for the responses, from highest to lowest: #3, #5, #2, #4, then #1. However, if the affected content is fully supported by at least one reliable source, then #1 is the preferred option. I've described the process that I personally use for removing citations of unreliable sources at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 61 § Removal of sources. — Newslinger talk 01:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, the proposal is spot on and covers all possibilities. The deprecated sources need to be removed, but whether to retain or delete the associated text depends on what reliable sources say about the text cited, and is a matter of editor consensus already covered by policy. It is rare to find reliable sources that back text typically cited to deprecated sources, and the BURDEN should be on the editor wanting to retain the text to produce a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I tend to agree with Andrew Davidson's opinion above about the concept of deprecated sources being flawed. A nutty incident I came across was a source being removed on the grounds that it was deprecated, when its author was the topic of the article. I have also seen sources with embedded videos allowing television news broadcasts to be viewed being similarly deleted.     ←   ZScarpia   02:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As is usual for these discussions, comments along the lines of "sometimes a deprecated source should be used" are already accounted for because deprecation does not prevent a source from being used, as described in detail at WP:DEPS. In fact, this proposal specifically (re)states that use of a deprecated source is permitted whenever consensus supports it. It may also be useful to reiterate, in response to objections based on disagreement with deprecation as a general concept, that the practice has been repeatedly endorsed by consensus across multiple discussions.
I also think it’s important to note that even if the outcome here is inconclusive, it's likely that much of it would be supported by consensus regardless (e.g. some of the opposing arguments are focused on objections to specific points rather than the proposal as a whole). I would especially point out the implications of the apparent consensus against proposal 3 below: given the rationales, there appears to be consensus against any restriction that makes removing deprecated sources more difficult than removing any other source (or, as some have put it, giving them "protection"), which is a key point because of its relation to the issue that originally led to this discussion being opened. Sunrise (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If it weren't for the fact that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and that people on a righteous mission don't always slow down to consider details, like whether a specific deprecated source should be used, I might agree with you. What do you say to User:ZScarpia's example? Just someone not following the directions, so nothing to worry about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Linking my belated response on user talk after this discussion was archived. Sunrise (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support We have people removing predatory journal articles from WP and replacing them with {{CN}} tags. These predatory journals are generally still more reliable than what we are discussing removing here. We of course want to allow a small number of exceptions such as we do for withdrawn journal articles like Wakefield's paper when we are discussing said paper. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I saw an instance of that recently. It was the Journal of Pakistan Nutrition, which is now hosted by the less-than-stellar academic publishing house SciAlert. It was cited to support some numbers (e.g., the amount of carotenoids present in a colorful oil that is mostly used in the cosmetics industry). Those numbers are now uncited, as if some editor just made them up. This breaks the Wikipedia:Text-source integrity and makes the article worse. But apparently their fear of being seen citing a mediocre academic journal is bigger than their fear of having uncited material in articles. I'd feel a lot more respect for the removal if the editors who want to remove mediocre journals made any significant effort to replace the sources with ones they approve of, rather than leaving the rest of us with a bunch of unsourced text and no idea where it originated from. (Hope we don't accidentally cite the same source that was just removed, because they're not leaving future editors any information about what they've deemed unacceptable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Proposal 1

  • I suggest the discussion should happen at the WP:RSN - we've already seen editors declare that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page means they can keep a deprecated source, and then it goes to the RSN and their sourcing is rapidly shown to be terrible, e.g. this discussion. To overcome a broad general consensus achieved at RFC, we need an equivalently general countervailing level of consensus - e.g., four people on a talk page shouldn't be able to override two RFCs deprecating the Daily Mail. But that's a minor modification, and broadly it's a good proposal - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I left a notice at WP:RSN for the discussion to happen here. I wanted to have it here to specifically avoid issues with "local consensus" matters; this is a page with a broader reach than RSN, and is better as a "neutral ground" where the discussion would not be colored or influenced by existing discussions at RSN. That is why I considered this venue the best option. --Jayron32 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the discussion on the deprecated source usage specifically; I think the article talk page is the best place to house it because it should be in close proximity to where the source is being used; that way people who are unaware of the discussion can find it easier. I would not be averse to leaving a notice at WP:RSN pointing to the discussion, but a specific usage of a specific source SHOULD be discussed on the article talk page (different from the use of a source in general) RSN should be used for notifications rather than for discussions in those instances. --Jayron32 19:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Talk page discussion, with notification to RSN, works for me 100%. And yes, this is the very best place for broad general consensus on this issue - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Blueboar's objection seems covered by the provisions to allow deprecated sources by consensus - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar:: (edit conflict) I believe you may have missed some of the text in the proposal; your specific objection to it has already been addressed in the bullet point that begins with the text "If a deprecated sources is to be used or kept..." The proposal already assumes that even deprecated sources will have appropriate uses, and allows for such use. Can you please elaborate where you think that bullet point is lacking in addressing uses you may have in mind? --Jayron32 20:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • On the bot restriction - if this includes AWB, then the proposal would discriminate against editors with physical disabilities. e.g., for JzG, AWB is needed for an accessibility issue related to physical disability, per [1]: I use AWB, largely because the regex makes it vastly easier but also because I have C7 radiculopathy and it maximises the ability to work by keyboard rather than mouse. This strikes me as 100% a reason to use a given tool for editing - and, of course, an editor using AWB accepts all responsiblity for every click of the "save" button in any case - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard: AWB is generally considered a semi-automated tool. As long as you personally review and accept responsibility for every edit, and don't edit like a mindless 'save' machine, you're in the clear. WP:MEATBOT and WP:AWBRULES still applies, of course. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
My only concern would not be for the use of tools such as AWB per se but on the writing of routines and bots for the blind removal of sources. If AWB is being used in a way that makes it clear the user is considering each usage, and responding accordingly, that's fine. If they are just blindly setting up a routine to mass remove all uses, that's a problem. It's the automated nature of removing sources without considering each use, and the use of tools to do it so rapidly that quality control cannot be checked, that is the issue. Otherwise, I would think there wouldn't be a problem. --Jayron32 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would tweak the "fully automated" bit to add "without prior consensus." There are cases where fully-automated removal might be required (especially in the case of spam or if a WP:COI editor was adding an unusable source they have a COI with everywhere or something of that nature), and I'm concerned that this could be used to argue that a consensus at eg. WP:RSN can't allow such edits based on the consensus for this proposal being broader and prohibiting it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - Jayron32, would it be within the scope of this proposal to add a section about how new deprecated sources should be agreed upon? (E.g. should it be here, at the Village Pump, or on an article talk?) The reason I ask is because I saw an issue on WP:ANI the other day where there was a debate about whether Mail on Sunday was deprecated as it is an offshoot of The Daily Mail Michepman (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Would that be covered by the case-by-case exception mechanism, or are you after something broader? - David Gerard (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Michepman, I think we already know how deprecation works (via RfC at RSN). It's legitimate to ask whether such discussions should also be advertised via CENT. I would not be opposed to that. The Sunday Mail is an edge case and not particularly informative in forming a wider consensus - I don't know of any other instances where two sources of differing reliability share the same website, though I am sure it happens. My view there would be a qualified exception for the print edition of the MoS, but that's just me. Guy (help!) 11:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
David Gerard, JzG - OK thanks for clarifying. I am comfortable with tbe current process and don't have any suggestions for changes on my end. In terms of the Daily Mail issue I wasnt sure how widespread of an issue it was but if you're confident that it's an edge case then I think we can leave it as is. Michepman (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit worried about fleshy bots going around deleting stuff based on this, I'd like to make certain editors at an article got a decent chance to do any work needed first. A bot could go around and put a note on the talk page and give some decent timeout for them to mark the use as okay or replace before open season was declared. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Many deprecated sources are used on thousands or even tens of thousands of pages at the time of depreciation, partially because depreciation is an extreme step reserved for cases where a source that is clearly generally unreliable is being used constantly and widely in an unworkable manner. It is simply unreasonable to expect a discussion to occur before every single removal, or to give that sort of chance on so many pages when the usages are often obviously and clearly against the broader consensus - even a bot like you describe would often be tagging simply unworkable numbers of pages. And, after all, the nature of Wikipedia means that even if they go for completely removing the cited text, anyone watching the page can immediately restore it with a better source anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you're objecting to. Bots are quite good at going around the whole of Wikipedia marking things, surely it is a good idea for them to mark deprecated sources as deprecated? And if they can do that they can for instance put a time on and if that time is expired put a tag on showing no-one has attempted to fix the problem in a reasonable time? And then wikignomes can look around for those tags if they want to and do what they think is fit knowing that the normal editors haven't bothered to deal with the problem.. Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm also a bit worried about this opposition to "give that sort of chance on so many pages when the usages are often obviously and clearly against the broader consensus". I believe we should treat the editors of articles with more respect and this is very much against WP:5P4 "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" and especially against 'Be open and welcoming to newcomers'. If there is a decent time interval like a month for holidays before the dogs are let loose then a large proportion will have the assurance that editors at the article have not shown enough love for the cite and it can be open season. I would support something like this for all dated article warnings. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Think of it more as "we have 23,000 references that look like they're to a source readers can trust, but actually it's the Daily Mail." Keeping the little blue number when it's deceptive to the reader is bad. Taking out bad sources we literally can't trust does not in any way imply bad faith in the editor who put them there - but they're still bad sources that should be removed forthwith - there is no reason to deliberately leave a bad source in. There is especially no reason to make an assumption of WP:OWNership of the bad source, such that it has the privilege of staying in a month, when a merely "generally unreliable" source wouldn't get that privilege. Bad sourcing is as un-WP:OWNed and editable as any other edit covered in the edit notice - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You can't automatically remove all the dependent text using a bot. But you can mark all the citations as deprecated. And that is far better than just removing the citation because it shows the status of the reason for the text. What I'm suggesting would cut down the work involved in checking the citations - the text may have another citation, and editor there may give a good reason why the citation is okay in that context, any number of things. What is the sense in trying to do all that oneself if editors on the articles can do it? And involving editors is a good thing, ignoring them is bad. Dmcq (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Nothing I've said there implies using a bot, and nothing in your proposal implies using a bot - "fleshy bot" appears to be a term for removals you don't like - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It should be clarified that the rule would only apply when the source has been disallowed for the specific usage in question. The word "deprecation" gets thrown around a lot as if it has some sort of meaning, but I'm unaware of any formal policy or guideline that defines the term; the exact restriction is written in the closing of each source's RfC and common practices are outlined at the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources information page. Usually the source will be disallowed for statements of fact but may be acceptable for attributed opinions and WP:ABOUTSELF. –dlthewave ☎ 13:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Dlthewave, yes, and where there is clear consensus to retain a source we could create a template called something like {{deprecated source exception}} to avoid any bot or semi-automated removal. Guy (help!) 11:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Might I make a suggestion, if there is a concern about people not being given enough time. We only do this to source over (say) six months old, when there has been plenty of time to find a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
We still get a flood of incoming Daily Mail and Sun cites in new and recent articles. I would recommend against a requirement to keep these around for six months, rather than just removing them, pointing out that these sources are deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Six months does seem too long to me, I'd say one month in case an interested editor is on holiday, and the cite should be marked as deprecated as soon as possible. However I think it very important to allow editors at an article time to fix problems themselves to encourage participation in Wikipedia rather than have editors with no interest except cleaning Wikipedia come along and blast at the article without anything more than a templated comment. It shows disrespect. Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It has the danger of being bitey, but I've found it works quite well if I link them to WP:RSP - so they know there's a reason. (Also, TV editors are delighted to find that Digital Spy has been considered actually quite a good source for TV stuff.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why Remove the source and leave the text is on the list of possible, generally acceptable courses of action (and in the first position, at that). I would expect that in pretty much any circumstance, it would be better to replace a deprecated source with one of our famous {{cn}} tags than just to leave the text there. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Removing a deprecated source while leaving the text intact is appropriate when there is at least one reliable source that fully supports the affected text. For example, if [1] were a deprecated source and [2] were a reliable source that supports the entire sentence, both The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.[1][2] and The quick brown fox[1] jumps over the lazy dog.[2] would be reduced to The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.[2] — Newslinger talk 00:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I could probably be talked into supporting 1 - 4. 5 is a tough one for me though. — Ched (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with revision - "Text which is cited to deprecated sources should be not usually be treated differently than unsourced text." should be, "Text which is cited to deprecated sources should be treated similarly to unsourced text." In which case I would support. EllenCT (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - create a “Deprecated sources review board”

NO ACTION
Closing this per the WP:SNOWball clause. As editors pointed out, this is sort of part of the mandate of WP:RS/N. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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

When an editor comes upon a deprecated source, and can not quickly find a better source to replace it... the editor can submit the source (and context) for review by the board. The board will review, discuss, and determine whether the source is used appropriately (given the context), or not. Review will last for a limited time (say one week... but I am flexible on this). And will recommend an appropriate action (remove the source, remove the source and material, etc.)

Please share your thoughts Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • This seems entirely compatible with Proposal 1, as a place for removals that have been disputed to go. If you mean keeping the source in until a consensus is reached, this just creates a non-scaling bureaucratic blockage on removal of statements sourced solely to known-bad sources. Remember, we're talking about statements attributed solely to a source that we know we can't and don't trust - removal then review before putting back, per Proposal 1, seems obviously the correct treatment for claims with that little support - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
actually, yeah, oppose as redundant - this is called WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 3

  1. A bot automatically marks all deprecated sources as {{better source}} (with a note/timestamp in the template that this was a deprecation removal, so we can track it).
  2. 6 months after deprecation a bot updates all instances of {{better source}} to {{cn}} (with a note/timestamp in the template that this was a deprecation removal, so we can track it).
  3. 12 months after deprecation editors are free to remove content that is only supported by a {{cn}} with the appropriate tracking note in it. This can be done without discussion and with a an edit reason of "Unreliable Source" or "Deprecation Cleanup".
  4. During those 12 months, an editor may replace the source with a better source.
  5. During those 12 months, an editor may remove the content for normal editing reasons other than "Unreliable Sources" (e.g., if the content doesn't fit within the article, or the article is being rewritten in a way that doesn't include the content).
  6. During those 12 months, concensus on the talk page for the article can agree on removing the content.
  7. During those 12 months, concensus on the talk page for the article can agree to re-add the original source because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
  8. During those 12 months, reverts without discussion and only citing a reason of "Unreliable Source" would be treated as vandalism (same as deleting any other content without discussion or valid reason).
  9. From the time of deprecation, no new content can be added that references a deprecated source without prior talk page discussion and concensus.
  10. From the time of deprecation up to 12 months after deprecation, if content referencing a deprecated source is removed by vandalism (see above), it can be re-added as part of normal vandalism reversion process (this is not considered adding new content).
  11. After the 12 month window, a deprecated source effectively becomes a blacklisted source by nature of the ban on adding new content, and the fact that all old content should have been removed by now outside of limited WP:CONTEXTMATTERS cases.

Support/Oppose on Proposal 3

I believe the above strategy aligns with the connotative meaning of deprecated, and doesn't result in deprecated just being another word for blacklisted. It also gives very clear guidelines for what is acceptable editor behavior so there should be minimal edit warring outside of outright vandalism (which Wikipedia already has ways of dealing with). The fixed timelines make it so everyone has plenty of time to address the issues, and changes do not come as a surprise to any users.
The 6/12 month timelines could be adjusted if that is desired. I don't personally believe that deprecated sources are so intrinsictly bad for Wikipedia that they need to be immediately removed (that is what blacklisted sources are for) and I think that the editing process should tend to favor the assumption that other editors are acting in good faith and the content that was added is generally reasonable. I also think that bot-like deleting of content other users took time and energy to add to the site is very hostile, especially to newbies, and should be avoided/limited/telegraphed as much as possible. Deletion of content added by others should generally be a last resort, and we should strive to always give the author plenty of opportunity to improve before we delete their work so we can be a welcoming community to new editors. Micah71381 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportOppose It gives users time to find better sources. However I missed the part about vandalism, I support the autobot part, but not restrictions on human users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Bit long winded and the time period is long but overall yes I can stand firmly behind this. Deprecated definitely desn't mean fire and brimstone should immediately be rained down on all uses. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This literally gives deprecated sources more protection than merely bad sources. And new links to deprecated sources are added all the time - there's really no justification for protecting those known-bad additions for six to twelve months - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per David Gerard, and invalid RFC in that this seeks to undermine WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. This is patiently absurd and would defeat the purpose of deprecation, which is to allow generally unreliable sources to be rapidly removed in large amounts without individual discussion when they've been used extensively; in practice this proposal amounts to eliminating deprecation entirely; it is not to provide special protection for such sources, which this proposal suggests. There are, in many cases, thousands or tens of thousands of uses for deprecated sources, and the idea that we could wait six or even twelve months before doing anything systematic about them after a broad RFC on the source is unworkable. I would even go so far as to question the validity of this RFC, since it effectively seeks to overturn every RFC that has ever deprecated a source by redefining "deprecated" to the point of uselessness and seems, in practice, unlikely to get anywhere near the response that the RFCs it is undermining had. Unreliable sources should be fixed (including by removal, if necessary) on sight. Always, without exception. The nature of the fix requires some sensitivity to individual situations, but waiting six to twelve months to fix a glaring problem after an RFC clearly decided that it needed to be fixed is absurd. Note that regardless of the outcome of this RFC, WP:V / WP:RS will always allow editors to remove unreliable sources on sight with an edit reason of "unreliable source" - no consensus here can change that. Even a consensus on the talk page for WP:V / WP:RS cannot allow the continued usage of a definitely reliable source. We can disagree over whether a source is usable in a particular context, or how to handle it if it is, but once it's established that a particular usage of a source is not reliable W:RS always means users removing it with a reason of "unreliable source" are correct to do so. The waiting period for this RFC cannot be enforced; anyone who removed a definitely unreliable source would be correct to do so, and anyone persistently restoring it in the face of a clear consensus declaring it unreliable in that context would still get blocked. EDIT: Note that this proposal also contravenes WP:BLP in that it doesn't make an exception for unreliable sources used to source negative claims about a living person; we are required to remove those on sight, and, again, this invalid RFC cannot change that because the core principle of BLP is not subject to consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems like the least bad option. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this would protect material being summarily removed for which other sources (once checked) can be used. It would also reduce the risk of good faith editors not understanding why sources are being removed with misleading summaries, the tag will give them time to understand the true meaning of deprecation in the Wikipedia sense, which in actuality is very different from the kind of wholesale bans we've seen being implemented. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose #5 alone is a dealbreaker. If a shit source is used, people should be entirely free to remove said shit source, alongside the shittely sourced content. Just like everywhere else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all except #1 - A "better source bot" would make it easier to locate and remove or improve bad sources. The rest of it adds unnecessary bureaucracy and arbitrary timeframes that would make it harder to address bad sources and open the door to process-based wikilawyering. "Deprecated source" has no official meaning and sources marked as such should be treated just like any other unreliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Aquillion's (core policies) argument.—eric 20:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of A/ its incompatibility with core policy, B/ its complexity, in turning what is usually a simple discussion on a talk page into multiple steps and C/ an attempt to replace human judgment with automated tools in an area where judgment and nuances are essential. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would prevent valid removals of BLP violations and other problematic content drawn from terrible sources. Guy (help!) 00:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Incompatible with core policy and goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is (or should be). Alexbrn (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as others have said, this proposal is simultaneously complex, while going against our policy and guidelines. For example although technically it could be argued that removing an unreliable source for reason 'unreliable source in a BLP' doesn't come under number 5, it's way to unclear to me. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per all the above. See note below on automation. François Robere (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this and any other proposal that introduces bureaucratic hurdles to the prompt removal of deprecated sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mostly support I like the idea in general as a reasonable compromise. However the tags should be separate and distinctive (although similar), just for clarity. Also "a deprecated source effectively becomes a blacklisted source" at the conclusion is against WP:DEPS. This should be a cleanup measure to encourage the implementation of policy, not a back-door change to that policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
FYI there's no policy or guideline on deprecation. It's something that we just sort of started doing one day, and WP:DEPS attempts to document that practice. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Un-reliable sources need to be killed on sight. Debate, if any, can follow, the controversial information can always be added back later if a reliable source presents itself. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 10:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The concept of deprecated sources is fundamentally flawed because our citation of sources is context-dependent and so each case has to be judged on its merits. Also, it is our general policy that Wikipedia is itself not reliable and so a straw poll cannot be relied upon to determine the validity of sources in a broad-brush way. See also WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no such thing as a fully deprecated source; there are plenty of occasions on which we (e.g.) will need to cite the Daily Mail when the contents of one of their articles is the topic of the article and we want to ensure readers are able to verify the exact wording for themselves. Unless and until a bot is capable of understanding the difference between primary and secondary sourcing, any attempts at automated removal will lead to large-scale disruption. ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • MORAL support for all but 8 Most of the above seems reasonable, and I'm a little surprised that many people are oppose to the proposal as a whole based primarily on a problem with this one bullet point. Automating much of this process seems reasonable enough, but I'm not much of a techie, and I find it hard to believe that MicahZoltu, who three weeks ago had only 20 edits to his name, would know much more than I do. All that being said, with the inclusion of bullet point 8 I don't think we can allow this proposal to pass and place even more of a burden on those seeking to remove poorly sourced content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose- bullet point 8 automatically rules this out. No prejudice against considering a version that omits this it in favour of something more sensible. Reyk YO! 13:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Aquillion and DGG's reasoning. I support some of the bullets but am strongly opposed to others; this is too many things lumped into one proposal. – Levivich 03:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per David Gerard and Aquillion. Deprecated sources are questionable sources that have been explicitly identified by the community through an RfC. Bullet points #8 and #10 are extremely problematic because they prevent the removal of questionable sources, which contradicts our core content policies. It would be inconsistent to extend special protections to deprecated sources that are not extended to other sources. Bullet points #3–7 describe actions that are already available to editors. — Newslinger talk 00:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because marking worse sources as better is likely to be confusing. EllenCT (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Proposal 3

Good, reliable sources don’t NEED a “pause before removal”, because no one is likely to remove them. Unreliable sources don’t need a “pause before removal”, because we agree as a community that they are not appropriate. Deprecated sources DO need a “pause before removal” because they are neither fish nor fowl... They are neither reliable nor unreliable. It depends on context. The pause is to examine that context, and to determine if that context is one of the limited situations where the use of the deprecated source is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Well said. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated sources are a subset of questionable sources: every deprecated source has been confirmed to be generally unreliable by the community through a noticeboard RfC. I don't see any valid reason to specially protect deprecated sources when questionable sources are usually considered inappropriate. — Newslinger talk 01:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It is extremely simplistic to say "Deprecated sources are those listed on a wiki page. All content from such sources is equally bad." Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Content can be removed for normal content removal reasons, just not for "Unreliable Source" during the window. This effectively treats the source as "fine for now, will become blacklisted eventually". There is no additional protection given to the content or the source beyond the protection from being removed as "unreliable source" (which a good source would also have). If the content is inappropriate for the article, if it is vandalism, if it violates other policies, etc it can still be removed per normal Wikipedia editing policies. Basically, treat the source as "fine" for pre-existing content during the transitionary period, but with a warning to users that the source is going to become blacklisted after a time and they should take measures to address the situation if they want the content to remain. Micah71381 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Not long ago, someone removed one of these so-called "known bad" sources and modified content, replacing the "known bad" source with a "not-known bad source". Thing was, the so-called "known bad" source was absolutely 100% accurate, and the replacement was wrong, and factual inaccuracies were literally added to Wikipedia. This is why we can't get even close to automating this process, particularly when the use of these sources is contextual and even per DEPS, agreed reliable in some circumstances. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • But I can currently remove any source I feel is unreliable with "unreliable source", with the content cited to it if I don't think finding a source for that content is likely to happen. I can even do so on a dozen articles or a hundred articles, if I want to be fairly WP:BOLD about it or am extremely confident that the source is unreliable, without any discussion or RFC of any sort in advance. This proposal would redefine "deprecation" to give such sources special protection for months on end, which is extremely misleading - I would still be able to mass-remove sources that haven't been discussed, but sources that the community has agreed are severely unreliable in all cases would be specially protected? Absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
And new links to deprecated sources are added all the time - there's really no justification for protecting those known-bad additions
  • User:David Gerard Per (9) in the above list, new content from a deprecated source is disallowed, effectively treated like a blacklisted source where only WP:CONTEXT can override it. During the transitionary period, any new additions would be treated as though they came from a blacklisted source, so there would be no protection for them like there would be for pre-existing sources. Micah71381 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned in my response, I feel that this proposal is invalid (as in, it cannot be implemented even if it obtains consensus here.) It would redefinine "depreiated" in a way that would effectively overturn every RFC that has ever used the term, and I would even argue that it wouldn't apply to any future RFCs that use the term unless they specifically incorporate its text in the RFC proposal, since its meaning is idiosyncratic to the point of meaningless. "We want to deprecate this source" does not mean "we want to provide special protections for existing usages of this source", and, therefore, any RFC that decides on deprecation would override this RFC unless the response here is extremely high (as most of the RFCs this seeks to undermine were.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Aquillion In your opinion, what is the difference between deprecated and blacklisted? When you say, "Unreliable sources should be fixed (including by removal, if necessary) on sight. Always, without exception." that makes me think of how blacklisted sites should be handled. To me, the difference between deprecated and blacklisted is that deprecated sources in existing articles (prior to the deprecation) are not in need of speedy deletion/removal, while blacklisted sources should be purged with prejudice from Wikipedia. Micah71381 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Blacklisting a source adds an edit filter to prevent people from using it, and requires that it be removed as soon as possible. Deprecation merely establishes a consensus that it can be removed on sight, raising the burden of anyone who wants to object to a removal by requiring that they answer the consensus in the RFC. Note, even without formal deprecation, and even without any existing discussion, any unreliable source can be removed on sight with an edit reason of "unreliable source" - in fact, WP:RS establishes this (and that will remain true, for all unreliable sources, regardless of the outcome of this RFC and regardless of deprecation, since WP:RS is not subject to consensus.) Deprecation just speeds up this process by avoiding the need to discuss the source every time someone objects to a removal and therefore making it easier to rapidly remove it from many articles at once (since if you do so before it's deprecated, you'll have to answer each objection individually, and may face trouble if your decision that it was unreliable turns out to be sufficiently contentious.) But "remove unreliable sources on sight", with a reason of "unreliable source", is the default - and appropriate behavior required by WP:RS, with the caveats just being disagreement over whether a source is reliable in that context and whether to remove / replace. It is not something an RFC is required for, and certainly not something this RFC could restrict. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Aquillion This quote of yours, "we could wait six or even twelve months before doing anything systematic about them", makes me think that perhaps you have misunderstood this proposal slightly. During the 6-12 months, you can take action to address the issue of sourcing. The only thing you cannot do is remove the source/content for the reason of "Unreliable Source". As soon as the deprecation occurs the source will be marked as {{better source}}, potentially by a bot, so there would be an even more immediate and systemic action taken than the current procedure. Along with that, any editor may freely replace the source with a more reliable source without discussion. The content itself is also not protected other removal reasons due to "Unreliable Source", so there are still a number of reasons you can remove a source from an article during this transitionar period. Micah71381 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The only thing you cannot do is remove the source/content for the reason of "Unreliable Source". Incorrect. WP:RS is core policy and not subject to consensus; therefore, you can always remove an unreliable source on sight with the reason of "unreliable source", no matter what, without exception, and will always be able to do so regardless of the outcome of this RFC. This policy cannot and will not change that; if people believe incorrectly believe that it would have such an effect, it should be hatted immediately. There is room to debate what sources are reliable and how to handle unreliable ones, but if anyone contributing to this RFC thinks that it will delay the removal of a source that an RFC has found to be unreliable in a particular usage from situations where it is being misused, they need to back down immediately. That directly contradicts the requirements of WP:RS and is therefore not possible - unreliable sources are always at least potentially subject to immediate removal. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nitpick, but an important one I think for this particular conversation: WP:RS is a Guideline, not a Policy. WP:VERIFY is the policy that underpins WP:RS.
I'd support users being able to use deprecated sources provided they mark the use as such and it gives their justification. Normal talk page discussions can deal with anything beyond that. Not that it is blacklisted like spam. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

We can add a "none grandfather" clause that says this only applies to cites 12 months old, after this new proposal comes into effect. Any source added after this date is still subject to summery removal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  • How do you tell the age of a given source in an article? It's considerable faff with the history. The proposal throws up gratuitous roadblocks, and still specially-protects the worst sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I did not say it was easy, but I thought this was a bot? Would it not be possible to have that bot only mark cites added before a certain date?Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, this proposal cannot "come into effect" as written. WP:RS always allows the immediate removal of an unreliable source, fullstop, and is not subject to consensus. There is room to disagree over whether sources are unreliable and how to use them, but "we have agreed that this source is unreliable in this context, but people are not allowed to remove it for the next twelve months" contravenes core policy and is therefore unenforceable regardless of the outcome of this RFC. It is flatly not acceptable, under WP:RS, to say "this source is not reliable, but we are going to use it here for twelve months anyway." --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Again I think this is just about an automatic bot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne Would you be more amenable to this proposal if BLP was specifically called out (as is common in many guidelines and policies)? Or does the complexity of the guideline still leave you in the oppose camp? Micah Zoltu (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A note on automation: I generally support more automation on Wikipedia (see §1-2 in the proposal). I think there's place for a separate discussion on automated scan-and-tag (with {{deprecated inline}}) upon source deprecation, possibly with automated removal and re-tagging (with {{cn}}) after 12-24 months of inactivity. François Robere (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to automation for this. The simple fact is, there are nuances to dealing with deprecated sources that a bot simply can not handle. It has to be done the hard way... case by case and by hand. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Deeper Problems: Deletion of arbitrary content citing "Unreliable Source"

Reading over this discussion, I think we may actually have a deeper seated problem than deprecation. Above User:Aquillion says, "But I can currently remove any source I feel is unreliable with "unreliable source" with the content cited to it if I don't think finding a source for that content is likely to happen" and this seems to mirror the behavior that some editors exhibit. My understanding of reliable sources (following the ethos of WP:DONTREVERT) is that individual editors do not get to assert that some particular source is unreliable and delete content just because they think it is unreliable. There is a process for getting a source marked as unreliable both for a single page/citation (talk page), or more broadly (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). Am I misunderstanding policy here and anyone can delete anything citing "Unreliable Source" and that is acceptable behavior of an editor? I have been operating under the understanding that the first step if you believe a source is unreliable and it isn't listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is to either replace the source with a more reliable one, or bring it up on the talk page and engage with other editors to either find a better source, or remove the content if the talk page consensus is that the source is unreliable.

Throughout the Wikipedia editor behavioral guideline pages it repeatedly talks about how we should be WP:BOLD but also prefer to to add content rather than remove content. This feels like a situation where if someone added something and the only issue an individual editor has with it is reliability (meaning one editor thinks the source is reliable, and one thinks it is unreliable), then we should default to siding with the party who wants to add content, rather than siding with the party who delete content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You profoundly misunderstand policy, yes. WP:RS requires that all sources be reliable; therefore, removing a source with a reason of "unreliable source" is always valid in the same way that eg. removing uncited material or unencyclopedic content or things that plainly violate WP:TONE is always valid. Individual cases can be more complex and require more discussion; particularly in contentious cases it might be worthwhile to have discussions in advance to establish a consensus on how a source can and can't be used (or if it is usable at all outside of the highly-restrictive usage that allows almost anything, eg. WP:ABOUTSELF.) And certainly if there are substantial objections, anyone making mass edits to remove a source should slow down and go to WP:RSN to obtain a consensus before continuing (deprecation, of course, is such a consensus.) There's no strict default on who to side with in such a dispute for most situations - once there's disagreement it becomes necessary to talk things out; but note that in WP:BLP situations policy unambiguously sides with people removing the source. In other situations, deprecation is a way to settle those disputes by allowing a source to be rapidly removed with objections directed back to the RFC; without deprecation, you can absolutely remove sources (and even boldly remove it on multiple articles), but must stop and answer individual objections or stop and hold a centralized RFC if it's clear that there's substantial disagreement. The idea that sources would be presumed reliable (ie. removing them is not permissible without established consensus) is absurd and goes against Wikipedia's standard editing policies - WP:BOLD absolutely allows removal (if anything it slightly favors removal, especially of recent material, since adding an unreliable source without estrablishing its reliability in advance is itself bold. And of course, as mentioned, in WP:BLP situations you are required to remove unreliable sources on sight, and restoring them is not permissible without a clear consensus supporting restoration.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
So (lets give you are scenario) someone (using a deprecated or dare I say it even banned source) uploads say "Slaves in the south were happy being slaves" that should stay because it is sourced? Or "NASA never landed on the moon" or "Kennedy was killed by Tuffty club assassins to demonstration how dangerous roads are"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Great examples Slatersteven. I think what I would like to see in such a situation is at least a claim made by the person removing the content that the information is likely untrue. Part of the problem I'm witnessing both in the issues that lead to this thread and throughout other parts of Wikipedia is that editors are just saying "Unreliable Source" and deleting content without trying to find an alternative source, and for content that is largely undisputed. As an example, if you have 100 unreliable (but not deprecated/blacklisted) sources that all say that X happened, and 0 reliable sources that say otherwise, and little to no reason to believe that the data is incorrect, I think we should err on the side "keep the content". Of course, such a strategy applied without thought has its own set of problems such as people creating 100s of unreliable sources to make some claim no one would report contrary to (e.g., celebrity X was an extra in movie Y, no one will report that celebrity X was not an extra in movie Y). Regardless of which side we land on on this issue, editor judgement needs to play a larger role than is being employed currently.
  • TL;DR: I think the root problem that people are frustrated with is that some editors do not appear (not implying bad faith) to be applying judgement to their editorial strategy. They appear (not implying bad faith) to be doggedly adhering to policy/guidelines without regard to context. This thread, I believe, is essentially other editors trying to formalize a set of rules that will protect Wikipedia from such edits, but in reality I think the core problem is that context and judgement are either not being used or there is disagreement on context and judgement (likely), and disputing context/judgement is really hard and will very often result in an edit war. I don't think I have a good solution for how to deal with editors who don't apply judgement/context, and even less of a solution for dealing with editors who disagree on context/judgement. I don't think any proposed solutions to the problem, including the status quo, will actually resolve this core problem. This problem is particularly bad since a WP:DISRUPTive editor (not implying anyone here is disruptive) can lean on the fuzziness of context/judgement to WP:GAME. Micah Zoltu (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Which I agree with, because everyone things their loony theory is logical, factual and not disproved (often because RS cannot be bothered to even look at it). Moreover this also reds a bit ORy, "well I think this sounds reasonable, so lets keep it". NO, our cornerstones are verifiable in reliable sources, not logic or reason or persuasive argument (I have recently seen a block for just this sort of argument). Also we do have wp:undue, if no one who is significant gives a damn why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • people are frustrated with is that some editors do not appear (not implying bad faith) to be applying judgement to their editorial strategy. They appear (not implying bad faith) to be doggedly adhering to policy/guidelines without regard to context. It is remarkably forthright of you to admit that you find our core policies to be frustrating, but they are, nonetheless, core policies. If you're in a disagreement with someone who you think is misapplying WP:V, find a better source or produce a consensus that the source is reliable in that context. Those are your options. (For the record, I am sure many of them find you to be failing to apply judgment when adding or restoring sources, and many of them feel you are mindlessly ignoring policy / guidelines without regard to context. But we settle this sort of dispute with our policies and guidelines, not by saying "I find it really annoying when people cite WP:V and WP:RS at me, so let's make WP:V unenforceable." Even if you, personally, feel that an unsourced statement you added to an article is "largely undisputed", the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that by producing a reliable source. I know it can be frustrating and time-consuming to produce such a source, and it can be dispiriting to see the stuff you added to an article repeatedly removed, but when something is legitimately challenged it should always be removed immediately (and will always be removed immediately, especially in WP:BLP situations); if you want to restore it, grit your teeth and put in the effort to find that source rather than wasting time and energy on terrible suggestions like this one. No matter how strongly you feel that a statement is so self-evident that it doesn't require a source, nobody is going to give you a blank check to put or keep essentially unsourced material in the encyclopedia just because you strongly feel it to be true (outside of the limited scope of WP:BLUE, I suppose.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Existing methods work quite well on loony theories. The problems arise when there is genuine disagreement between responsible editor on wha controversial matter, because the general (and appropriate) way of conducting an argument on disputed content is to attack the reliability of the sourcing. Any attempt to set up a complicated procedure here will provide more opportunities for those WPedians who are in the majority here to decrease the amount of coverage of other views or even remove them entirely. (I almost always agree myself with the majority position here in most such questions, but the proper way of explaining it is to give every view a proportionate coverage, not try to decrease it by focussing on deprecating every source used while ignoring the possible dubiousness of some of thes ources that agree with the majority.) NPOV requires active measures to counter the inevitable tendency to want content to support what one thinks ought to be the case. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    DGG, that's a risk, but I'd be interested in specifics. Normally I have not found it difficult to document genuinely significant insanity from reliable sources. We've learned how to deal with this through long experience with Truthers. MONGO is particularly good at it. Guy (help!) 11:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest a two-step process to avoid excess abruptness. First, tag content {{better source needed}} to give heads up on problematic source. In a few weeks, remove bad source, change tag to {{citation needed}}. In a few weeks more, if no better citation given, then delete content. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the same as Proposal 3 above I believe, just with shorter time frames. If you agree with that, I would encourage you to express your support above with a caveat that the timeframes should be shorter. I would personally be fine with shorter time frames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Point is, content is not the same as source. If the claim that the Pope is Catholic is cited to an unreliable source, does it ever make sense to remove both source and claim? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reading back over Proposal 3, I think I poorly phrased the last step in the process. My intent with the last step in the process is that any content referencing a deprecated source would be "open season" by editors for removal with prejudice. This wouldn't override Wikipedia policy by demanding that the sky is blue is deleted because no one updated the source to a non-deprecated source, it would just move the onus from the person removing the content to strongly back up their claim (which would be the operating procedure during the 12 month window) to the person wanting to retain it to strongly back up their claim. The purpose of Proposal 3 is give people time to fix pages they care about before editors come in and do mass deletions with minimal editorial research. Micah Zoltu (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The phrasing isn't the issue. Material without a reliable source can be removed at any time by any editor, and a reliable source must be produced to restore it. You cannot change that, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As I already said above, we cannot set the process you're requesting. It is a violation of WP:V to require that material without a reliable source remain in place for even a single minute, and it is a violation of WP:BLP to leave such material up at all. We can sometimes disagree over whether a source is adequate, and it is appropriate to request that editors be cautious in situations that they know to be controversial; but when, for instance, a source is clearly unreliable and is being used to cite an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, it should always be removed quickly; discussion is not necessary. This is core policy and cannot be changed by discussions here, so I will continue to edit in accordance with that policy (ie. removing things that are exceptional and indisputably sourced to unreliable sources, immediately and without discussion) regardless of discussions here - and I fully expect that anyone who restores such removals without obtaining a clear consensus to do so will get blocked, while my removals will be appropriate. Again, I can understand some of the angst over rapid-pace removals, especially in situations that are not so clear-cut; I could support a loose, optional essay suggesting voluntary guidelines for when to discuss things, and plainly things like careless removals causing disruptions are a separate issue that need to be handled on an individual basis. But the hard, sweeping restrictions people are proposing here directly contravene WP:V and are therefore utterly unenforcable - no matter what happens with this discussion, things that plainly lack a reliable source would still be removed immediately, and anyone who repeatedly restores such material would still be subject to a block for violations of WP:V. Proposal 3 should be hatted immediately; thankfully seems to be heading to the well-deserved dismissal such a terrible proposal deserves, it would remain unenforceable even if supported by unanimous consent. WP:V cannot be changed by editorial consensus and, therefore, any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I largely agree with you at this point, see my TL;DR above. I think the real underlying problem here (which it sounds like you agree is a problem if it is occurring) is that there is the appearance/belief that some editors are not trying to find alternative sources, are not using judgement to decide whether the claim is exceptional or not, or are doing mass reverts/deletes rather than precise deletions. This sort of behavior is hard to prove since the editor can just say "the claim seems exceptional to me" or "oops, didn't mean to delete that" over and over again and it becomes exhausting to cleanup after such a person and debate them over and over again, even if you are winning the exchanges. On top of that, since following someone around and fixing their mistakes is generally not allowed, you may end up getting in trouble for trying to protect Wikipedia from such an editor. This is what leads to proposals like these, where people are trying to figure out a way to protect Wikipedia from a perceived problem. Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly... the issue is that, as a community, we really do not like it when editors make mass edits (even when those edits are totally in line with policy ... people have been sanctioned for going on policy “enforcement crusades”). Go through a series of articles, one at a time over the course of several months, and remove/replace poor sources and iffy content... no one gets upset. Do the same all at once, and the edits appear unthinking (even when they are not), and the edits are deemed disruptive.
The community agrees that certain sources should be deprecated... and that in most (but NOT all) situations they should either be replaced or removed. But we ALSO want that done carefully (because there ARE exceptions to deprecation). And THAT means we have to do it the hard way... one citation at a time... slowly and by hand. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This is literally what I do - you're battling a straw man - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Blueboar, what you're saying - and it's absolutely true - is that you can get away with purging all references to a crap source (a predatory journal, say) as long as you do it in a way that nobody notices.
We have strong support for identifying sources that are generally unreliable, super-strong support for RS as a principle, but no documented consensus around the inevitable corollary that once a source has been identified as unreliable it should be removed, despite a long history of having done exactly that (e.g. with Breitbart).
So while you're right that removing over a period of time is certainly less likely to cause drama, that arguably introduces a policy that you can only remove sources as long as nobody notices, which is unsatisfactory and more or less guaranteed to result in drama. Guy (help!) 11:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC on decorative quotes

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
  FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. New RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Decorative Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template

DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please check your link as this is going off wiki for me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The correct link is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Decorative Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template. Outriggr (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It has been changed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed the pointer in case anyone else goes offwiki. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Added the {{Anchor}} with the previous title of the section (Special:diff/933856733). --CiaPan (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Article introductions

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I’m first time here, and no expert. In my search, I didn’t find a discussion of this issue.

I’m a regular user of Wikipedia, but have only contributed once before this. My issue is article introductory paragraphs, which frequently are so precise that, for the average reader of an unfamiliar topic, the summary point is lost. My issue is well summarized by this comment I found in a thread on a technical website:

@MontyHarder, actually, I liked the simplicity of the explanation before, without getting so deep into terminology. This is the problem with community edited solutions like Wikipedia: simple explanations that get the idea across get mangled to the point of unreadability for beginners simply because experts aren't satisfied with the technical precision. – Wildcard Mar 29 '17 at 23:53

Or more simply: the perfect is the enemy of the good.

IMHO, when someone starts or edits a wiki entry, I would hope such a reminder would be the first guideline they see.

Comprehension is the key to the introduction. When I comprehend the overview, I’m much more likely to explore its nuances.

Many thanks for your consideration.Urbanist27 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Urbanist27

We try to provide a readable lead but sometimes we miss the boat. If you have an article in mind, you are welcome to provide feedback on the talk page or at one of the WikiProjects tagged in the talk page. --Izno (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Most articles in Wikipedia could do with improvement, and the lead sections of articles about technical subjects need lots of improvement. As an example, I am a postgraduate student of mathematics, but I find many of the leads of our articles on mathematical topics impenetrable, because they appear to be written like advanced text books rather than provide an introduction for the interested and intelligent reader who is not an expert in the particular sub-field. Technical experts in such fields do not tend to be particularly good writers of English at the appropriate level. I don't know that there is much we can do about this apart from edit articles to improve the situation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging comments. Looks like I’ll start editing leads for readability. Urbanist27

There are sometimes tags at the tops of articles saying things like "This article needs additional sources for verification". I am sure I have, on occasion, seen tags saying something to the effect of "This article's introduction may not summarize its key points clearly" - if the introduction is unclear, this tag could go at the top of the article. Vorbee (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The relevant templates are listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Introduction. Of course, if you have the time and ability to fix things yourself, and wish to do so, it is better to do that, but the templates should prompt someone else to do so eventually (maybe after many years) if you do not. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead Improvement Team is appropriate. For myself, I often edit introductory paragraphs. Mathematics is perhaps the field most in need, but medicine, sociology and others also suffer. I must confess, as an old communication technician I sometimes review articles I wrote on that topic a decade ago and realize, I am nearly as guilty as any mathematician. It's easier to translate from a technical jargon that I barely understand, than from a jargon that's practically my native language. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: new category called category:Classification categories

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

I would like to create a new category called "Category:parent categories." category:Classification categories. it would be only for the highest category in a group of sub-categories that are all iterations of the same distinction. right now, we have Category:Container categories, but it is totally repetitious, and therefore of little use.

Therefore under my idea, THIS would be a parent category: ► Category:Olympic competitors by country‎ (220 C)

while THESE would not, although all of them currently appear in the category Category:Container categories.

► Olympic competitors for Afghanistan‎ (6 C) ► Olympic competitors for Albania‎ (7 C) ► Olympic competitors for Algeria‎ (19 C) ► Olympic competitors for American Samoa‎ (5 C) ► Olympic competitors for Andorra‎ (8 C) ► Olympic competitors for Angola‎ (8 C) ► Olympic competitors for Antigua and Barbuda‎ (3 C) ► Olympic competitors for Argentina‎ (36 C) ► Olympic competitors for Armenia‎ (17 C) ► Olympic competitors for Aruba‎ (5 C) ► Olympic competitors for Australasia‎ (8 C) ► Olympic competitors for Australia‎ (47 C) ► Olympic competitors for Austria‎ (40 C) ► Olympic competitors for Azerbaijan‎ (16 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bahrain‎ (6 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bangladesh‎ (5 C) ► Olympic competitors for Barbados‎ (6 C)

► Olympic competitors for Belarus‎ (31 C)

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Category:Olympic competitors by country, not Category:Olympic competitors? The definition you proposed feels a little arbitrary. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
okay, but in that case, why have Category:container categories in the first place? what purpose is served by having 157 subcategories placed there, that are all repetitions of the same iteration, i.e. "X by country," "X by century," etc etc?
My point is that if a group of subcategories exist that are all "X by Y," then it would be far more useful to have "parent categories" to group the individual parent category for each such individual distinction, together, rather than including the same iteration over and over for each distinction as we do in Category:Container categories, for every century in history, or every country in the world, or every occupation in society, or what have you, etc etc etc ad absurdum.
so ultimately, it would include every category here that is "something by something", but not each and every recurring iteration of the same thing, so it would have several categories that are "'something' by country", but it would not have every resulting iteration, as in "something by Algeria," "something by Argentina," "something by Australia," "something by Albania," etc etc etc. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"okay, but in that case, why have Category:container categories in the first place?" Maintenance. Essentially, it's a tracking category for categories that either use the template {{Container category}} directly or the container=yes parameter of a small number of other category-templates. So that means that if, for some reason, something about that template needs to be updated across all categories, it's easy to find all of 'm. It means that if for some reason, policy or guidelines regarding container categories change, it's easy to find most* of them (*no doubt there's some lingering around that technically are but haven't ever been properly tagged, hence not all) to verify they all fit those changed policies/guidelines. Its use is "finding a particular type of category (namely, those that are container categories)" not "finding a particular style of category" (x by y, x in y, y of x & so on) nor "finding categories with a particular type of mainspace content". AddWittyNameHere 05:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The optimal solution is probably adopting WP:Category intersection with an actual 2020 UI that supports it. That means a page in category like "Olympic competitors for Argentina" will be tagged with "Olympics", "Competitors" and "Argentina" (or something like that) and in the UI you can mix tags to find what you are looking for. This saves a lot of time on the creation and maintenance of categories. But as the UI for Wikipedia itself is stuck in the early 2000s, I doubt this will ever be implemented or if implemented, be remotely useful. --Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

New proposal

  • New proposal. okay, but in that case, doesn't my idea sound kind of intriguing? come on, you guys!!! I do find "container categories" mildly interesting, but impossible to browse through. i think it'd be neat to have a real "container category", i.e. one that only shows other categories that need to be "containers," but without repeating the same iteration over and over and over again. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I am open to alternate names on this. how about some of these possibilities?
See also the categories classification categories, holder categories, branch categories, trunk categories, subdivision categories, and source categories
open to comments. I have changed the section name. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym:, what do you think? thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Sm8900, What problem are you trying to solve? How might your proposal help readers/editors? Do you think other editors would understand which pages belong in your proposed category? DexDor (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
DexDor, those are excellent questions. briefly, my original reason was that I thought that Category:container categories was meant to help users in browsing categories, but that it was too over-populated to really let them do so. Now that a commenter explained above that it is for maintenance, perhaps that does somewhat reduce the original basis for my original idea; however, I still think my original idea is valid; it would allow users to browse through multiple classification folders easily if they wish, allowing people to have a broader perspective of the categories out there.
as an example, here is another category that I created, along with almost ALL of its sub-categories. Category is: Category:History overviews by topic. do you see what I mean? I favor categorization as a way of enabling users to browse, and to get easier or better oversight of broad areas that they might not otherwise see. so therefore, I do see this idea as one more such tool, simply as an alternate method and approach to browsing here.
as far as users understanding the scope, we could make sure they do so. I would add some degree of notes on the category, and would welcome input from everyone on how to improve such notes. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose any expansion of categories. The proposal seems to be a make-work project with little to be gained. The whole antiquated category system should be replaced by list articles, and certainly not expanded. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Any other comments??

Okay, fair enough. any other comments? I would presume that this proposal can only stay here for a limited time. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: there is no rush - eventually if no one continues it will be bot archived. — xaosflux Talk 00:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments on enwiki File talk pages that pertain to files hosted on Commons

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This comment pertains to a Commons file, but was posted on the enwiki File talk page where it will be missed and most likely never actioned. As you can see from running through the file talk page list or better yet the file talk page recent changes list, this is far from uncommon. Is there a way - an edit filter, some kind of warning - to tell people that if a file is on Commons, comments on it (rather than WikiProject templates or such) should probably go there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, could be done by editing Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File talk whether the file is on the commons or not can be found using the ifexist parser function. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've set up a sandbox version which can be seen in action when editing File talk:Granby crater LC08 L1TP 194019 20181205 20181211 01 T1.jpg. Feel free to edit the message at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File talk/sandbox, I may perhaps made it too aggressive. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Meta RFC on the Foundation calling itself Wikipedia

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because the community consultation cited in support of the meta:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project did not include the question, and to the extent that it may have been implied, community agreement with the proposals did not achieve majority support, I have created meta:Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia. EllenCT (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

note re idea

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

hi. I have a new idea for a new Wikipedia policy. in fact I am thinking this should be a sixth pillar. Here it is: "Wikipedia has a zero-tolerance policy for harassment of any individuals." what do you think? I have observed some gaps in that area. if anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll write more details. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What does "note re idea" mean? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It means "comment with regard to an idea". See the second definition of re if that's the source of your confusion. I would suggest to the OP that they avoid using headings that give no clue as to the topic of the thread; i.e. one could use "note re idea" for most discussions on this page or any other. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Pillars are never this specific, and harassment falls under the broader Pillar 4. We already have a policy at Wikipedia:Harassment, and the definition of harassment is not as clear as you seem to believe. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
well, in my opinion, we need to make that definition clearer.
by the way,just to answer the valid question above, the reason that the section title is ambiguous, because I don't want to attract harassment merely for bringing up a topic that relates to harassment. that is also a concern here sometimes, you know. I appreciates your replies. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
What would you call this proposed sixth Pillar? GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
As stated above we already have a policy on this at Wikipedia:Harassment. If you think that definition needs to be made clearer then explain what you think should be done on its talk page. Pillars are very broad-brush principles, and, again as stated above, the current pillar 4 covers this area. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: you likely would've gotten more input here for your proposal, if you had named your section heading "Proposing a sixth Pillar". GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Removing Technical Move Requests Process

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion
WP:SNOW close, this isn't going to go anywhere. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:RM/TR should be removed. The goal is to reduce special alternative move request process. The focus is on using regular move requests on article pages at most times (I will say 90% of the time). Less alternatives more focus on one process. Regice2020 (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (TMR)

  • What's wrong with the current process? All WP:RM/TR requests are already evaluated by a page mover or an administrator before pages are moved; and anyone can contest them if they believe that the request is not uncontroversial. Iffy★Chat -- 10:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
^Reply It better to be focused on posting request page move normally on the article talk page again rather than contesting at WP:RM/TR were less user activity to review. It pretty much allows the "sneak up" pages moves in WP:RM/TR. The goal of this proposal is to reduce special alternative for page movers to focus on normal page move (posting request page move with new name on article talk page). Regice2020 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the current set-up, since (pre-admin), I'd fairly frequently make TR requests but probably wouldn't have if I'd have had to go through the whole process. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Can the proposer here give any concrete examples of where the current process has created problems? We allow, and even encourage, bold editing when it comes to article content or even to article deletion when it is thought to be uncontroversial (the WP:PROD procedure), so why should editors be forced into a full discussion when a move is obvious, such as a misspelt name or bad spacing, but technical considerations prevent them from performing the move themselves? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"so why should editors be forced into a full discussion when a move is obvious, such as a misspelt name or bad spacing" Obvious, misspelled name or bad spacing was not part of the proposal, but it still be allow to edit even if WP:RM/TR process gets removed. Its part of general fixes with discussion or not. If they are on page name move dispute then users can ask for move protection while they figure out a direction through a normal move request discussion on article talk page. Regice2020 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
How were they not part of the proposal (and I can't understand anything else that you say - please write in comprehensible English)? If WP:RM/TR is removed as you suggest then, when there are technical reasons why editors can't perform the move themselves, such as the editor being unregistered or there being a redirection page at the proposed title, it will be impossible for such moves to be performed without discussion. Once again, please tell us what the problem is before proposing a solution. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A move request generally requires seven days of being open before it's fulfilled, most technical requests are simple enough that a quick check is all that is needed before it's fulfilled. I'm not seeing the need, nor a problem that requires a different solution. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem is the "speed or quickness" on how the technical requests are successfully handled. I can basically sneaked in a technical page move without gaining some attention (other people opinion) beside the 1 person moving it. If the technical move request process removed. More regular move requests and less alternatives. If page has a obvious or misspelled the user can direct move it to correct article page. If the user have a dispute war over page move then person request a move protection and normally create regular move request again.Regice2020 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
But the point is that the user cannot always "direct move it to correct article page" for technical reasons, two examples of which I provided above. For the third time of asking, please provide an example where this has caused a problem. I don't believe that you suddenly thought of this as a general issue rather than reacted to a specific case, so please tell us what that specific case is so that we can see whether it's a genuine problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not a good idea. It would result in a huge increase in the overall volume of full move requests, and requests that actually require further discussion would become more difficult to find. The current process works correctly in almost all cases: someone who has the technical capability of moving the page and agrees with the evaluation that the move is uncontroversial performs it, in the same way pages can be boldly moved by editors in good standing when there are no technical issues involved. In the rare case in which someone objects to a technical move that has already been performed, the page can be moved back and a discussion started at that time (WP:RMUM). Dekimasuよ! 04:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think the proposer understands what the technical requests process is for, given the above discussion with Phil Bridger: it's mainly for those completely uncontentious moves that ordinary editors can't make, because, for example, a bot has edited an existing redirect so regular editors are unable to move over the top. Removing the process for dealing with them would make fixing these an enormous hassle basically for the sake of making it an enormous hassle. There's nothing to be gained from this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • For reasons explained extensively by other editors above, this proposal is not happening and should be closed. – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY close per SNOW. I just read the full discussion. As someone who used TR recently to revert a previous TR of an obviously controversial move (involving capitalization change) I know that TR is itself the solution to the occasional problem it may create. But for the most part TR is used for truly uncontroversial moves that require assistance. It’s valuable and it works. Nothing in this proposal or discussion indicates otherwise. —В²C ☎ 14:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose many moves that can't be preformed by most users aren't actually controversial. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2020 (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.

An idea for missing people deaths

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 30 § An idea for missing people deaths
 – Please discuss at Idea lab first. Post here if there is any support and you can propose a specific change to a specific guideline. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC about addition to Special:Import

Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion
Clear support is been established below, this is a low-risk addition as commonswiki is a large, well patrolled project, and this access is mostly limited to our admins. — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T242884

Should Wikimedia Commons be added to the available source list in Special:Import (link about it for non-admins/importers)? Currently meta, nost, de, es, fr, it, pl, outreachwiki, and test2wiki are the only available options to import pages and their histories from. Adding Commons requires consensus. This would benefit this community by allowing for pages (such as templates) to be imported more easily. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:57, 16 January 2020 (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.

Editor consensus regarding Europeana and Wikidata Property 7704

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I would like to get a consensus how we work with Europeana on en:Wikipedia

Background: Europeana has 50 000 000 objects from European museums and archives. They have taken a decision to move in the same direction as Wikipedia has done with Wikidata and have created Europeana Entity API As a start they have for agents (persons) select 160 000 people from dbpedia everyone that has a same as Wikidata.

What I have been doing: see also overview and status report

  1. I have matched 160 000 artists in Europeana to Wikidata Property 7704 see T240290 i.e.
    1. e.g. Leonardo da Vinci --> Q762 --> Q762#P7704 --> agent/base/146741
  2. I have created Templates or got help adding Property 7704 to Template:Authority_control on more Wikis see status
  3. on en:Wikipedia
    1. template was created Template:EuropeanaEntity
    2. started to populate see Category:Europeana
    3. got one complain 4 jan 2020 about the quality of Europeana see link
    4. created this question about next step

Question Can we get a consensus what to do? The options I see

  1. ) add Property 7704 to Template:Authority_control - my suggestion
  2. ) continue with Template:EuropeanaEntity
  3. ) put it on hold

Hope this is the right location for a discussion like this - Salgo60 (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a good place for the discussion, though you may want to consider posting notifications about this discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I do not know enough about Europeana to offer any insights on your question, but I will note that Category:Europeana should probably be named Category:Wikipedia articles with Europeana identifiers to be consistent with the rest of Category:Wikipedia articles with authority control information. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Adding it to {{Authority control}} sounds like the best way forward. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • First preference: don't use it. Second preference (if there is no consensus for my first preference): add it to authority control. Please don't add it as yet another separate template. Reason for my first preference: the first use of the template I checked, on Tove Jansson, gave a page with info taken from Commons and Wikidata (with the same problems we get with Wikidata biographical info in our own infoboxes, Alphonse Mucha is born in "Ivančice, Austrian Empire, Moravia, Ivančice" according to Europeana), and 5 images of book covers, for of them in Greek[2]. Added value for enwiki? Zero. Looking at a major artist like René Magritte, we get 24 results. In reality, we only get 7 or so, the rest are duplicates or lack an image, and the quality of the information is dubious. "The false mirror (2004)" from an artist who died in 1967? Oh, it's some copy from a 2004 exhibition. The original is from 1968[3] Wait, what? Again he died in 1967, so no, the original is neither from 2004 nor from 1968. The link at Pontormo gives me an error bad gateway 502[4]. I doubt that Diego Velazquez (1599-1660) painted or drew a steamship from 1859[5]. In general, too many errors and dubious information (taken from us) to be good enough to warrant inclusion here. Fram (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fram: I agree they have quality problems see T240809. My hope is by easier access Europeana from Wikipedia on more languages MAYBE we can get museums to upload better material linked to the correct artist.
  • In Sweden I see a very low understanding for Linked data and the need of not just uploading text strings and we get in Europeana a mess, My hope is that Europeana take this serious and get committed to start correct things and have processes tools for things we always have had like version history, discussion pages, subscribe on changes. Today a text search "Pablo Picasso gives 490 hits and checking the entity "agent/base/60206" abt 200 hits i.e. they have a mess...
  • Museum people are not "rocket scientists" - maybe a Wikipedia article with a Europeana link in {{Authority control}} will help them understand Linked data and that its important when you upload a work by Photographer "Carl Larsson" to say its NOT same as the painter Carl Larsson "agent/base/60886" same as Carl Larsson (Q187310). Today local museums in Sweden dont even understand the change process of Europeana when I tell them they have issues with objects they have uploaded
  • I will tweet to the Europeana people and see if they tell us if they have a plan to add quality. If that plan is trustworthy I think we should add them to {{Authority control}} otherwise they can stay in Wikidata ;-)
regards and thanks for the response - Salgo60 (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think adding something to Wikipedia in the hope that this will lead the quality of the source to increase is the right approach. The goal of Wikimedia may well be to work together with such institutions or organizations to benefit mutually (and I have no problem with this of course), but this is not the goal of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I also guess Wikipedia now is so big that we can start telling others come back when you have good enough quality. The "win-win" I see is if museums starts understand this matching process and Europeana get "cleaned" its a nice echo-system we get were
  • a small Greece museum can upload material for el:Θεοφάνης_ο_Έλληνας to Europeana
    • match it to Wikidata Theophanes the Greek (Q319403) and Europeana "agent/base/154989"
    • and readers of en:Wikipedia article Theophanes the Greek get a link to Europeana and easy get access to material from the local Greece museum --> the en:Wikipedia reader experience will increase
    • lesson learned is that often when I compare Europeana and Wikicommons e.g. commons:Category:Feofan_Grek then Wikicommon has more material and better structure/metadata. The good thing in Europeana is that they often have a link to the local museums --> you can go there and get more information as the metadata is often better in the local museum compared to Europeana as Europeana has a rather week metadata model EDM compare it to Wikidata and > 7000 properties
      • I also see the development of commons:Commons:Structured_data/Overview as a magic step in the right direction were we can tell that a picture depicts something and we will get a new level of possibilities writing articles of xxx and easy retrieve all paintings depicting something... when looking at Europeana i doubt they will take the same technology step so maybe Europeana is just a "structured container for museums before good objects are uploaded to Wikicommons and get enriched... - the future will tell but one big step I see is if local museums get digital and can add metadata so objects are findable and then I feel Europeana is a friend...
- Salgo60 (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Thanks for feedbacks I have also tried getting some feedback from Europeana people but no reaction so I guess they have more important things to do ;-) I try to summarize

  • quality in Europeana is not good when we check
  • Europeana has no structured way for communicating with them to improve the quality so we see no activities we guess we will have yesterdays weather
    • Europeana also lack tools for us to track changes/version history/discuss objects
  • Adding Europeana to Authority data on en:Wikipedia will not be done
  • If the quality of the objects of an artist in Europeana is good enough the template Template:Europeana entity can be used

for more status of using Europeana entity (P7704) see report - Salgo60 (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems a weird summary of what is said above. The positions were (from most to least popular) "don't use it at all", "use it in authority control", "use the Europeana template". That final position was only advocated by you. And yet, in your summary, you conclude that the template can be used? Then why bother even asking the question? I'll TfD the template to get more input on this. Fram (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
What I say is that the template is ok if we check the Europeana quality for the artist we use it for. I think many museums in e.g. Italy has done a good work.
Having the Europeana link in the Authority template > 140 000 articles means that we must trust the quality of Europeana and that is sadly not possible - Salgo60 (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Europeana see T243764#5833958 - Salgo60 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Death and legacy of User:Brianboulton

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As you may know, one of our strongest contributors, Brian Boulton, has recently passed away. He leaves behind a sandbox with links to twenty-one draft pages. Some of these are empty, perhaps already having been finished, but many others contain content from which Brian probably intended to either develop new articles or improve existing articles. It would be great if some Wikipedians could sort through these and see what can be done to complete the last items that Brian was working on. BD2412 T 02:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_164&oldid=955616487#RfC_on_inclusion_criteria_for_lists_of_political_endorsements"