Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 107

Including women and children in statistics
Many articles concerning catastrophies do this. This is something the media does. I don't know if there is a policy exists that covers this, but shouldn't special mentions of women and children be excluded from these articles? It's purpose in the media is to touch people's hearts because women and children are seen as fragile, but I don't see a reason to say "200 people killed, including women and children" or "including 4 people under the age of 6". I remove cases like this and people tend to keep it that way because they agree, so I'm wondering if Wikipedia's policies would allow it. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...Wow...Great question. Part of the reason this is often seen is that traditonally it shows it's a worse disaster because women and children (and the elderly and disabled) would naturally be protected while men might be put in a situation more exposed to danger.  I don't think it's always wrong for WP to mention this if the sources do the same thing.  (Of course I know that now days women are out on the front lines as first responders along with men so that part is old-fashioned.) Borock (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you also suggesting the same in reporting on war and terrorism? Borock (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the incident did affect a building that would be prone to a specific segment of a population, it likely makes sense to discuss that state. One case in point of recent include the Sandy Hook shooting (which took place at the school, so clearly how many children were killed would be a major point of discussion). On the other hand, for the 2013 Moore tornado, though the storm took out two schools, they weren't in sessions, so how many children were injured in the storm isn't a factor. But otherwise, if the disaster or event affected a random segment of the population, calling out how many children and women were killed is going to be done by the press but something we should not reiterate to avoid bias. --M ASEM (t) 17:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that mentioning the number of women is relevant. There's female soldiers and firefighters, not to mention doctors, so it's trivial information. I do think thet mentioning the number of minors is relevant. Now, in the case of armed conflicts, we must contrast the number of civilians with fighters. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

To everyone here, my concern is that it stems from subjective viewpoints and that it wouldn't necessarily be neutral. Is there a reason to include woman and children besides targeted attacks, like Sandy Hook? Take Oklahoma City bombings for example. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the issue with women here, but what's the subjective viewpoint you think is behind separating children casualties? postdlf (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We certainly should not take the lead in breaking down statistics this way, but if the sources of the time described it in such a manner, it is meaningful, because it was meaningful to them. It may help to openly cite the source so as to put some distance between ourselves and the phrasing; we also should feel free in this context to use more old-fashioned phrases like the number of "souls" that perished, when that is how the sources spoke. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can use more care if it clearly is a case where the source is trying to create emotion. Let's say there's an earthquake (An event that doesn't care about age or gender) in a poor region of a country. I can easily see reliable newspapers reporting how many woman and children were killed if only to create an implied emotional plea to the reader, but otherwise makes no attempt to justify that number. We should not be continuing that bias even though the numbers were reported as such.  But on the other hand, if the earthquake's fatalities were high because one of the hardest hit buildings was a school while in session, then reporting on the number of children that may have died would likely be sensible following that.  --M ASEM  (t) 13:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to call out children or other special populations, especially if it's unexpected. You expect a workplace disaster to kill adults, so if any children die or are injured, they should be noted.  If there were a fire at an all-male monastery, and a woman happened to be present and die, then that should be called out.  One might similarly note the deaths of elderly people in a nursing home disaster, or wheelchair users in a tall building, the difference between workers and inmates in a prison disaster, or other such special situations.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with removing this from articles, because it is an information. And more information the article contains, better it is. If it was removed, you wouldn't know that the victims / whatever included children and women as well. And even if that information may not be important for you, it may be important for someone else. Petrb (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Easy solution: do what the sources say. If the sources include a distinction for the number of women and children, or of a nationality etc. then we should include it. It's not up to us to decide the demographic interests of readers. The desire to not discriminate on the basis of "irrelevant" demographic information is certainly well-motivated from a position of moral universalism and equality. But it's not Wikipedia's place to enforce said moral vision. In the article on The Holocaust, we righly point out the numbers of people killed in different ethnic and social groups (Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Poles, Romanis, Soviet prisoners of war, blacks, the disabled, gay people, political opponents, Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses) and have articles covering the progression of the Holocaust in different countries in Europe, even though the principle of universalism and equality ought to suggest to us that each death in the Holocaust is the same, whether Jew or Gentile, German or not, gay or straight etc. The Holocaust is a very strong example of a case where we would absolutely not want to suggest that excluding information about background would be a good idea.

But it applies further. I've frequently seen Wikipedians attempting to erase national, ethnic, religious and sexual background from articles about people and events on the basis not of difficulty sourcing that information but on the basis that such information is "irrelevant". For our readers, more information may be perfectly relevant because they are trying to understand precisely the thing which we've deemed "irrelevant" because of our moralising. If we consider the demographic details of a crime "irrelevant", then we better consider deleting Violence against women or Violence against LGBT people or Violence against prostitutes and any number of other articles which focus on what some Wikipedians consider to be "irrelevant" details. Nobody put us in charge of deciding what factors are considered irrelevant or relevant; we should go with what the sources tell us. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that some reliable sources, at times, will include breakdown of deaths by some grouping that has no relevance to the actual incident, if only to demand sympathy from the reader. We have to be aware when the sources - even if accurate - are not approaching the topic clinically which is what we must do. (eg, this is basically "Won't someone think of the children?" -type statistics).  There are cases where the number of (certain group) were involved should be reported but othertimes not, even if sources exist in both cases to document it. --M ASEM  (t) 13:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources obviously consider it relevant, hence the inclusion. Why do you think Wikipedia should override the sources on this matter and not others? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of systematic bias which we do have to be wary of and do not have to follow since we're just summarizing. Again, the argument I put forth is the usual "Won't someone think of the children?" issue. A report could say that drunk driving kills 1 in 100 children every year, gaining empathy from the reader, but fail to mention that the same number is true for any other demographic group. That's systematic bias that we should not repeat. --M ASEM  (t) 14:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think if the information is there, it can be included, unless it is shown that it really is non-neutral, non-verifiable, etc. If the reliable sources multiply affirm and do not deny that "5 men were killed", I don't see what could be non-neutral about the article also including that information: neutrality is about points of view; but if no reliable source has a differing point of view, then representing the only point of view cannot possibly be non-neutral.  Maybe the sources do include the information merely because they have some non-ideal motive to distinguish groups of people without legitimate relevance, but just because the sources have that motive, doesn't mean editors here need that motive in order to reflect their claims: These editors just need a motive of being interested in not having verifiable, neutral, etc. information excluded.  The statement "5 men were killed" contains more information than the statement "5 people were killed".  If the first statement is equally supported by all the reliable sources as the second, then editors do well in not replacing the first statement with the second.   -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever seen a Wikipedia article do this (at least not for long). Could you provide some examples to support this being a problem we need to worry about? It seems to me we're already doing it; it's editorial common sense unless it's contextually relevant. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Policy regarding articles on companies and WP:PROMOTION
I recently had a conflict with User:Mean as custard regarding an article on a company, Ansaldo STS. The issue was whether information on what a company does is essentially advertising their products and services. The user I was in conflict with was deleting large section of texts on the basis that is was WP:PROMOTION. I could see some of his argument, but disagreed with what I viewed as a hardline stance. Discussion on the talk page and the other users page failed to reach a resolution, and so I took the issue to the admins noticeboard. As you can see I was deemed to be the party in the wrong. In fact the admin that reviewed the case was not even sympathetic to my argument that the article could have been tagged as being too promotional or have been editing to make it more WP:NPOV.

The issue that I take from this is that writing any article on a company and its products and services should not be so easily mistaken for advertising or even SPAM. If the products and services that a company provides are what make it notable then it meets the basic criteria for being in a wikipedia article.

I would like to understand what others think. I think that there is an inherent conflict between policies. On the one hand the issue of not making an article on a company appear as advertising versus the inherent notability of a company, which is the success of what it does and what it produces. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not rocket science. When someone adds material to an article containing phrases such as "With over 150 years of history and innovation"; "dedicated to safety, efficiency, reliability, and sustainability"; "tailored to our clients' needs", then it all goes in the bin as there is clear promotional intent. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with Mean as Custard. Anything in the first person is promotional and should go - for the simple reason that it is either the company itself posting (OK - a member or agent of the company...) or it's a copyvio (and very few company sites are compliant with NPOV anyway - that's not what a company site is for, is it?). 'Dedicated', 'tailored', 'solutions', 'innovation', all those are PR speak. There are many articles about companies on Wikipedia that do comply with NPOV. They are either edited by company staff so cleverly that they fit our requirements, or they are edited by neutral editors. Whichever, we've got good material (assuming notability, of course). Mean as Custard is very good at rooting out the PR speak. As are several others of our patrollers. You say "If the products and services that a company provides are what make it notable then it meets the basic criteria for being in a wikipedia article." - yes. But the article must comply with Peridon (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, are all the articles about TV programs essentially a sales and marketing tool? I think you are on a slippery slope towards having wikipedia remove significant content from itself. Biographies of living persons could also be considered promotional.  As for everything written about The Simpsons ... I'll bet Matt Groening is laughing all the way to the bank, thanks Wikipedia!! Bhtpbank (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. It's not what the subject is. It's the way the article is written. PR people use certain buzz words - 'solutions' being a favourite. I saw one article that was so full of them that I never found out what the company actually did! An article stating "BloggsCo offers its valued clients market-leading solutions for their little everyday difficulties" is going to be pure advertising, and anyone who can't see that probably works for a PR company. (I have found that they don't seem to see that they are talking a different language - I once sat behind two PR people on a train, and the only meaningful thing they said in half an hour was to fix up to meet for lunch on Tuesday.) It's quite possible to talk about a subject without advertising it. Whatever the intention behind the creation of the article. If it's neutral, it's neutral. If it's PR jargon, it's promo. These things can be re-written. You're welcome to do so. But in compliance with WP:NPOV. Some companies are inherently non-notable (while things are going well for them...). A company whose products are on millions of tables every day can still be non-notable - if the products carry the 'WeSellCheepa', 'BloggsCo' or 'MandysMart' brands for those chain stores, and nothing they make carries their own name (Frank Henning and Daughter, Inc) (don't Google - fictional example). Now, if the Henning company is hit by the revelation that cat DNA has been found in their dog food, and seven employees have been found to have the highly infectious and contagious Popsy virus, AND the company finance officer has absconded to North Korea, that's different... But that's notability. Non-notable = no article, no matter how written. Promo = no article, no matter how notable. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By "promo=no article, no matter how notable" surely you mean "no article in its currently written form"... If an article is notable, even if it is promotionally written, it deserves to exist. It can be cleaned up. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater just when the bathwater gets dirty.Camelbinky (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what Camelbinky means is: if the topic or subject (in this case a company) is notable, an article about it deserves to exist. If the article is overly promotional, that can be fixed by re-writing the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought that tagging an article for re-writing, or simply re-writing would be acceptable ... however User:Bbb23 who was the admin that reviewed my case on the edit war page totally disagreed, and dismissed it. This admin completely came down on the side of User:Mean as custard. I felt this was harsh, and that some middle ground could have been found. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, I looked through the log of User:Bbb23 and found that he clearly dislikes WP:SPAM. He indefinitely blocked User:Naderaleebrahim for promotion, even though the account had only made FOUR (4) edits in wikipedia ... talk about harsh treatment, and WP:AGF. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's kind of you to review my actions and give me the benefit of your wisdom. Actually, Naderaleebrahim, had far more than four edits before I blocked him; you just can't see them. I'm mildly curious why you're even in this forum. Are you proposing a policy change?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when I said 'promo = no article', I was meaning in terms of what was there. Not possible futures. A new article would be treated on its own merits. I'm also curious about the point of this discussion. I'm not certain about where Bhtpbank is coming from - are they suggesting that nothing should be deleted or removed for being promo, if the subject is notable? Or is it that nothing should go whatever? Tagging for reworking is used in marginal cases, and may or may not work. Those tags seem to last for years. Information on what a company does can be neutrally worded or promotionally worded. We accept the former (I'm assuming notability here - without that there's no chance anyway), but reject the latter. And this is not only companies. It applies to individuals (CVs are usually regarded as promo even if neutrally worded, and articles about as yet unpublished first novels, films by unknown directors that are still casting, and so on). Peridon (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23 to me based on his snarky remarks to User:Bhtpbank (especially I'm mildly curious why you're even in this forum) I would say a little less bitey from his remarks would go a long way. Even if you are battling spam, vandalism, trolls, improving the encyclopedia, or even just copy-editing... just be nice and talk to people as if you were talking to your mother (and she has a giant rolling pin to wack you across the head if you mouth off, and it's legal for her to use it). Just some friendly advice.Camelbinky (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I thought the first sentence in my post was snarkier than the rest. This is the wrong forum, and Bhtpbank is wasting our time, all because they disagree with the closure of a report at WP:ANEW. My last comment, blunt but not particularly snarky.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * These kinds of things usually just need some copyediting. "Ansaldo makes signalling equipment for trains" is useful, factual, informative, and encyclopedic.  "Ansaldo provides solutions to customers" is not.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I came to this place to see whether the review of my posting on the admins noticeboard was a fair reflection of policy. I felt that the actions of User:Mean as custard were too stern, and that User:Bbb23 review of the case was not per policy.  Deleting large sections of articles may be WP:BOLD but should be done via discussion on the talk page (it was not). I also felt that editing to make the article WP:NPOV was a better course.  I just wanted to see if my views held any water or were baseless. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Back to original issue: Well yes, although I would side with removing entire sections as being a better alternative than leaving them sitting around (for years in some cases I have seen) waiting for someone to clean them up be editing out the promotional buzzwords. Especially if just a long litany of products, since these tend to be the obvious way to get attention from search engines. They also go out of date if too detailed. Just explain what the company generally does in normal English, unless, for example, specific products get coverage from independent sources. My pet peeve now is all the companies who say they do "cloud platform solutions" for example. That can mean just about anything. I imagine a plinth with a jar that has some over-saturated solution, so has turned a bit murky. My guess is that in a couple years this terminology will either sound quaint or be unknown to most, with a new neologism that becomes more trendy. And clearly anything saying the company is "multi-national" "leading" or "award winning" etc. is a red flag, and anything uncited can be removed. W Nowicki (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How best to explain one preferred spelling over another
I went to the article Muhammad hoping to discover why the spelling of The Prophet's name has been changed in recent years. I found nothing and asked on the talk page, where I was told the only spelling of The Prophet's name is Arabic, and the English spelling is a transliteration and no explanation is necessary for the change in the biography. I was referred to Muhammad (name). If I find what I am looking for, likely in a newspaper archive that I will have access to at a library later this week, I can add it to that article.

However, the "Mohammed" spelling is used several times inside quotes in the Muhammad article. Ordinarily this problem could be solved using "[sic]", but this is not an incorrect spelling. It was the correct spelling when the author of each quote spelled it that way. Is there some proper way to refer people to an explanation for this?— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I provided Vchimpanzee with the initial response referenced above, this is an interesting question to me as well.


 * The Muhammad (name) article explains, in the 'Etymology' section that the name "Muhammad" is the strictest transliteration of the Arabic spelling. Therefore that is what we use, because it's the closest we can get to the original, using our alphabet. Reliable sources from history use other transliterations, commonly "Mohammed" but also "Mahomet" and variants. So when we quote a source, we quote what it says, but when we refer to the subject in Wikipedia's narrative voice, we use the closest transliteration to the actual Arabic name that we have.


 * We generally use &#91;sic&#93; only when we need to inform the reader that any errors in the quoted or transcribed material belong to the person being quoted. However, there is no need to identify alternative spellings of 'Muhammad' as erroneous, because there was no historical agreement on the correct transcription of Muhammad's name until recently, as far as I know. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think what I'm looking to do, then, is identify the spelling as correct.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Inserting a hidden comment in the article text ( )would at help least prevent editors from "fixing" it. Unfortunately I don't have any ideas as to how or whether to mark that in a visible way in the displayed article. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider wrapping the quoted spelling in the template.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll give that a try.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Limit citation style choices to recognized guides
Please look at WT:CITE and discuss whether citations in articles should be based on recognized guides such as Citation style 1, APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, or The MLA Style Manual rather than ad hoc styles invented for a particular article. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Partially disambiguated titles
I propose that we establish a guideline stating that parenthetical disambiguation should render titles unambiguous and that, consequently, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should only apply to titles that do not employ parenthetical disambiguation. For example, Orange (film) redirects to the Orange disambiguation page because there are multiple films that are called "Orange"; each film's article therefore uses a fully disambiguating parenthetical, such as Orange (2012 film). Similarly, Party (album) redirects to Party (disambiguation) because there are multiple albums called "Party"; the articles about albums called "Party" are fully disambiguated, such as in the case of Party (Iggy Pop album). It has been argued in certain individual cases (normally citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) that the most prominent member of a particular category of thing should hold the less-disambiguated slot, thereby employing a partially disambiguated title. In the majority of cases, partially disambiguated titles have already been rejected through local consensus, but there is not anything in the guidelines at present to explicitly prevent partially disambiguated titles. I propose that we exclude partially disambiguated titles from our articles because the purpose of parenthetical disambiguation is to disambiguate; parenthetical disambiguation that does not disambiguate does not serve its purpose. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There are some projects and naming conventions that already specify this approach, but it is not a WP-project-wide standard. I think it should be; by the time a parenthetical qualifier is opted for, there's no reason to create a "qualifier hierarchy" -- the qualifier exists for disambiguation, so let them disambiguate fully. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a uniform approach would simplify matters and avoid unnecessary move discussions as to whether some particular instance of an already disambiguated title is the primary use for that type of topic. Discussions about primary topic already have a tendency to become unnecessarily combative over such trifling matters. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since most people would expect New York (city) to redirect them to the article about the city of New York, it does.  It should not redirect to New York (disambiguation).  In other words, the primary topic principles apply to all titles, including titles of redirects with parenthetic qualifiers.   If this proposal were to pass, an enormous number of redirects like New York (city) would have to change.  And to what end, exactly?   What problem would this solve?   --B2C 04:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's an excellent point! I never thought of that. But if this is only a guideline, surely we could IAR that for the most important of cases? Or should we just state that there is a very, very strong preference for 100% unambiguous parentheticals, and put New York (city) as a counterexample? Red Slash 05:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Even better, clarify the point of the proposal, which is to not name an article with a partially-disambiguated title. If phrased that way, New York (city) is not a counter example, since it's not the name of an article.  It doesn't really hurt that it's a redirect based on primary topic.  The nom asserts "It has been argued in certain individual cases (normally citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) that the most prominent member of a particular category of thing should hold the less-disambiguated slot, thereby employing a partially disambiguated title."  If that's true, it does sound to me like a very bad idea; however, without examples, it's hard to argue what we need a guideline to avoid a potential problem.  Does anyone have an example?  If we find one or more, we can argue specifics as to whether it's a good idea or not. – I just noticed that Template:R from incomplete disambiguation says "This is a redirect from a disambiguating title that is too ambiguous to identify an article. Such titles should generally redirect to the appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it)."  I don't know if this is a guideline, but it pretty much has the suggested intent already, since we're talking about titles that are too ambiguous to identify an article; but we could amend it to allow redirect to an article when the title is too ambiguous to identify an article but nevertheless has a clear primarytopic, like with New York (city).  Dicklyon (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * New York (city) occurs outside of Wikipedia. Thriller (album) does not.. So the guidance could be clarified to allow such "real world" qualifiers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "New York (city)" is not a counterexample; it would not be affected by this proposed guideline. New York (city) redirects to New York City, therefore the redirect contributes no additional ambiguity. Anyone looking for a city other than the American city who types "New York (city)" into the search bar will rightly be provided with the New York City (disambiguation) hatnote at the top of the article, and would have been presented with this hatnote even if "New York (city)" did not redirect to New York City. This argument assumes that New York City (disambiguation) lists the other cities called "New York", which, unfortunately, it currently does not. Affected articles would be ones such as Lost (TV series) and Kiss (band). Neelix (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support proposal (although maybe tweak the wording slightly to make it more explicit). We have situations for example where Angel (TV series) is the article name for the 1999 TV series, yet other TV series called "Angel" also have articles, so this disambiguator could equally apply to these. The whole point of a disambiguator is to be unambiguous, yet this is not reflected in practice.  See also Thriller (album).  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should apply to the undisambiguated title only, not to partially disambiguated titles.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose (or possibly "Partial oppose", the proposal isn't entirely clear on this point): The actual article should probably be at a fully-disambiguated title. But I see nothing wrong with the partially-disambiguated title redirecting to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that partially-disambiguated title, if one exists, rather than the "main" disambiguation page. Or, for that matter, with the partially-disambiguated title being a dab page in its own right, referenced from or transcluded into the "main" dab page, if there are a large number of disambiguations for that partially-disambiguated title. Anomie⚔ 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not address partially disambiguated titles at all. If there's a primary topic, it goes at the base name (or the base name redirects to it). If it's not at the base name (or the target of the base name redirect), it's not the primary topic. Incomplete disambiguation also deals with making partially disambiguated titles dab pages (that is, we don't, we make them redirects to the disambiguation page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The same logic applies. Anomie⚔ 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The same logic does not necessarily apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there is no need for a guideline on this. If a given article needs disambiguation (or further disambiguation), it is perfectly reasonable to propose moving it to an appropriately disambiguated title.  However, once you set "rules" to deal with situations where a complexly disambiguated title is needed, you end up with those "rules" being enforced in silly situations where a complexly disambiguated title is NOT needed.... simply because the "rules" says so. (Or, you end up with "rules" that get so bloated with "exceptions" that they become meaningless.)  Uniformity is not always a good thing, and disambiguation is one of those areas where uniformity can actually be more harmful than helpful.  Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In what case would a partially disambiguated title be benefitial? Neelix (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Partially oppose. Kiss (band) is an excellent example of a term for which people would not expect the band name to reside at the undisambiguated title, Kiss, but for which people would expect the title disambiguated only with the word "band" to go to this one particular band. Kiss (band) is also an example where there is only one other band by that name in the encyclopedia, allowing the other possibility to be addressed in a hatnote. I would suggest that a rule like the proposed rule should only be implemented where there is more than one reasonable challenge to any one term being primary for the disambiguated name. bd2412  T 20:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think experienced Wikipedians might expect the band topic to reside at Kiss (band), but that most visitors to the topic article might have no expectation of where the article would reside if not at Kiss or KISS. Many readers are not aware of (and do not care about) our selection of qualifiers. Even for those expectations, I do not see the drawback to fuller disambiguation, as with it the experienced Wikipedians' expectations would adapt to the new policies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree; it is only Wikipedians who expect particular disambiguators, not the readers for whom we are writing Wikipedia. Setting a particular number of alternate meanings before full disambiguation is required seems arbitrary. Neelix (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're both underestimating our readers. The disambiguators we use seem to me to be very easy for a reader to pick up on for anyone who looks things up on Wikipedia with reasonable frequency. Anomie⚔ 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any underestimation. I think using more precise qualifiers where needed will be no less each for a reader to pick up, and the reader landing at the appropriate section of a dab page will understand what happened. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - at the moment only one project - which has two conflicting guidelines, one agreeing with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and one opposing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (WP:MOSALBUM, edited to conflict with "one" primary topic 18 months ago, only recently felt). Since there's no evidence yet that any other project has adopted such a guideline, and since projects such as WP:FILM and WP:FOOTBALL specifically confirm WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the simplest solution is to undo the "PRIMARY ALBUM" edit from 18 months back as lacking any consensus discussion (even in the project as far as Talk page indicates?). As far as I can tell there's only 1 article affected anyway, even in WP:ALBUMS cannot find any example except Thriller (album) which does this. It appears to be the only single article on the whole of en.wp deliberately promoting "PRIMARY ALBUM" or any similar guideline. Until today I would have assumed Lost (TV series) and Kiss (band) are just accidents. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, after Thriller (album), Lost (TV series), Angel (TV series) and Kiss (band) is there a 5th article which does this? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just looking at bands, there is also Poison (band) and Poison (German band); Bush (band) and Bush (Canadian band); Genesis (band) and Genesis (Colombian rock band); Oasis (band) and Oasis (1970s group) and Oasis (1980s group); Nirvana (band) and Nirvana (British band); Anthrax (band) and Anthrax (UK band); The Eagles (which redirects to Eagles (band)) and The Eagles (UK band); Rainbow (band) and Rainbow (South Korean band); Exodus (band) and Exodus (Polish band). There's likely more, but that's all I had time for. older ≠ wiser 15:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A few more examples I've found, there are undoubtedly more.
 * For films, there are Metropolis (film) and Metropolis (anime), a 2001 animated film; Tommy (film) and Tommy (1931 film); Cabaret (film) and Cabaret (1927 film); Contact (film), Contact (short film), and Contact (animated short film).
 * For albums, there is A Hard Day's Night (album) and A Hard Day's Night (Sugarcult album); Tommy (album) and Tommy (Dosh album); Demons and Wizards (album) and Demons and Wizards (Demons and Wizards album).
 * Songs are a little trickier, in that there may often be an article about one song with "(song)" in the title, while the corresponding disambiguation page may list other songs that might not have stand-alone articles (some of which may be a redirect to an album). A few examples: Born to Run (song) and at least three songs listed at Born to Run (disambiguation), one of which Born to Run (k-os song) is a redirect; Stormy Weather (song) and at least four other songs at Stormy Weather (disambiguation), one of which Stormy Weather (Echo & the Bunnymen song) is a stand-alone article; Helter Skelter (song) and at least five other songs at Helter Skelter (disambiguation); Stardust (song) and at least three other songs at Stardust (disambiguation) including Stardust (Lena Meyer-Landrut song); Imagine (song) and Imagine (Tone Damli song) and two other songs at Imagine (disambiguation); Jolene (song) and at least five other songs at Jolene (disambiguation); Fragile (song) and Fragile (Kerli single); Boys Don't Cry (song) and Boys Don't Cry (Moulin Rouge song), Boys Don't Cry (Plumb song) and two others at Boys Don't Cry (disambiguation).
 * older ≠ wiser 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At first sight there are some of these where ambiguous disambiguation could be a problem, and a few where a clearly derivative and borderline notable (non-encyclopedic) article shouldn't be given much weight: "A Hard Day's Night is a Japan-only EP from the Californian pop-punk group Sugarcult featuring a cover of The Beatles classic." generally redlinks and redirects don't count unless its clear that there could/should be a notable article, or if its included as a chunk in a main article. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * NB after that comment I moved to A Hard Day's Night (Sugarcult EP), doesn't affect the point however. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just came across another eyebrow-raiser. There is Rainmaker (song), which I'll grant is a pretty good song, but Rainmaker (disambiguation) lists no less than ten other songs with that title. Is it really that much better known than Traffic or the Harry Nilsson songs. I have at least added a hatnote at the Iron Maiden song article which had been missing. older ≠ wiser 12:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Partially support – if we can clarify that it means we don't like things like New York (city) as article titles but they're OK sometimes as redirects, that I'm OK with it. That is, if we're going to use a parenthetical disambiguator, we should not leave partial ambiguity; if we're going to have potential primary topic arguments over partially disambiguated titles, and we will, then let's have those arguments only affect redirects.  For articles, less ambiguity is better.  And yes, the unique contrary suggestion at PRIMARY ALBUM should be repealed, and Thriller (album) moved to Thriller (Michael Jackson album).  Thanks for pointing those out.  The fact that the RM at Talk:Thriller (album) was a "not moved" close is clear evidence that fanboys will continue to argue for keeping ambiguous titles on their favorites (which we're accustomed to on undisambiguated titles; but on partially disambiguated is news to me, and quite silly); this guideline will help move such outliers into line with sense.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your amendment makes sense to me. Neelix (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Concern: I am concerned that this will lead to multiple articles about the same song... Song title (band X), Song title (band Y), and Songtilte  (band Z).  I understand the need for good diambiuation if all three bands have recorded a different song with the same title... but I am talking about multiple bands performing the same song.   We have hand numerous RfCs on this issue, and the consensus has repeatedly been against having multiple (by performer) articles.  Instead we should have one single article on the song (which either contains a List of bands that have recorded "Song"... or points to a "list of bands" sub article.) Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's an important issue here: we don't want separate articles on covers of song. What's less clear to me is why you think this proposal would open up that problem.  If Song title (song) is already unambiguous, we're done; if it's only partially disambiguated, because there are two different songs by the same title (not different performances of the same song), then we need further disambiguation.  It would probably be conventional to use the songwriter's or originating band's name for that, no?  Consider Mother (song), Mother (Danzig song), Mother (John Lennon song).  Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP Song already has a rule prohibiting covers from having separate entries. At least that's what I was told when it came up before, but I can't remember the link. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I once thought Psycho (film) was okay, but after further experience with these partially-disambiguated names, I'm convinced that (though they are helpful) they're not helpful enough to the reader to be worth the added complexity, confusion, and primary-topic discussions that will ensue. It's bad enough trying to decide if a topic is the primary topic for a particular title; adding to that trying to decide if topics are the primary topic for a particular title plus disambiguator is just too much. Powers T 02:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Are we anywhere towards a consensus with this yet? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, three users (Anomie, Blueboar, and BD2412) oppose the proposal because they perceive non-editor users as likely to expect particular articles to be located at partially disambiguated titles, and because full disambiguation adds a measure of complexity which they perceive as unnecessary. Seven users (JHunterJ, Bkonrad, Robsinden, In ictu oculi, Dicklyon, LtPowers, and I) all appear to support the proposal provided that the redirect clause Dicklyon refers to is stipulated, believing that partially disambiguated titles do not serve their purpose, and that discussions over what constitutes the primary topic for a partially disambiguated title are detrimental to the project. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted anyone's position on the issue. Neelix (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understand Dicklyon's statement correctly, that e.g. Thriller (album) could redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) should that be deemed the primary topic for "Thriller (album)", rather than being forced to redirect to Thriller (disambiguation) as in the original proposal, that's also basically what I said. I just phrased it as "oppose because X should be allowed" rather than "support if changed so X is allowed". OTOH, I may have misunderstood Dicklyon's statement. Anomie⚔ 17:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a situation like that with Scream (film) and The Devil's Advocate (film) at the moment. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to think ambiguous disambiguators should redirect to the disambiguation page, not least because having them redirect to an article means we have to decide which is "primary" for that context -- which, to my mind, partially defeats the point of avoiding partial disambiguation in the first place. That said, I would not want my opposition to that portion of the proposal to derail the whole thing.  Powers T 14:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This proposed policy/guideline will accomplish nothing if it allows Thriller (album) to redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). The point of the proposal is to prevent second-tier "primary" targets. The situation that Dicklyon indicates is one in which no additional ambiguity is added; New York City should already have a hatnote linking to a disambiguation page listing other cities called "New York", therefore redirecting New York (city) to New York City creates no additional ambiguity. An article with the title "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)" should require no disambiguating hatnote, but it would if Thriller (album) redirected there. There is no point in moving Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) if we do not then redirect Thriller (album) to the disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My impression is that most contributors to this discussion are on board with making this proposal part of our naming conventions. Am I clear to write what has been proposed into the guidelines? Neelix (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please go ahead. To clarify my position about whether a partially disambiguated title should redirect to a disambig page or to an article considered more primary than another, my point is that it makes little difference, such that nobody will be much motivated to argue about it.  Those partially disambiguated titles should never be linked, and users seldom type or search for titles in that form; and if they do, they'll end up some place and and be able to see clearly what they got, whether article or disambig.  So I agree with Powers in principle ("I tend to think ambiguous disambiguators should redirect to the disambiguation page, not least because having them redirect to an article means we have to decide which is 'primary' for that context") except that I, and most of us I expect, would never bother to engage in that argument which is primary for the context, as it just doesn't matter much at that point; if people want New York (city) to go to New York City still, that shouldn't stand in the way of making this fix.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say "please don't", with a message like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=555404720&oldid=555398254 that]. Let someone less obviously biased determine consensus here. Anomie⚔ 23:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well can we now progress move to accept/install this text? Seems pretty clear that Michael Jackson is above normal considerations such as DAB, but at least we can have clear advice for the other 4 million non-Michael Jackson articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and install it. But I don't know what you mean by "Michael Jackson is above normal considerations such as DAB".  This would apply just as much to Thriller (album) as to any other partially disambiguated title.  Powers T 18:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As recommended, I have installed the text here. Neelix (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, who's going to perform the Thriller (album) and Lost (TV series) moves? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to perform the moves. It will likely be somewhat time-consuming fixing the links, so any help anyone is willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any bots? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Those would make life considerably easier. I spent most of yesterday manually performing the link changes after the Poison (American band) move. I have made a bot request here. Neelix (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see consensus support for the absolute language used in that insertion. I have opened a new discussion at WT:D to work out less absolute wording that does have consensus support, and removed the new section for now.  --B2C 22:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My revert was reverted, so I edited the text to not use the absolute language. --B2C 23:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then that edit was reverted, so I've deleted the section again. I'm going to ask for an uninvolved admin to determine what, if anything, has been established to be supported by consensus in this discussion.  --B2C 17:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I think that our goal should be to get readers to the article they want in the fewest number of clicks. Wikipedia newbies looking for a band called Kiss are going to go to Kiss → Kiss (disambiguation) and then click the link for the American or South Korean band.  However, people who have used Wikipedia for a while and seen articles such as Anvil (band) or Blur (band) (where Wikipedia has only one band article and therefore "(band)" is the only necessary disambiguator) will guess that the article on the band will be Kiss (band).  Some people will be pleased that they found Gene Simmons' band on their first guess, while others will have to take one more click to get to Kiss (South Korean band).  If I understand the proposal properly, everyone looking for a band Kiss by typing Kiss (band) would be redirected to Kiss (disambiguation), and then have to take one more click to get to the article they want.  Therefore, it seems to me that implementing this proposal would make it take longer on average for people to get to the correct article.  Instead, I suggest we continue to use WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with good judgement.  GoingBatty (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it unlikely that the average user is the one you describe (ie. one who is going to type a parenthetical disambiguator into the search bar). In my experience, it is mostly only editors who take note of such intricacies within Wikipedia, and editors make up a small fraction of overall users. As outlined above, there are several more substantial detriments to identifiying primary topics for partially disambiguated titles. Neelix (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support unambiguous article titles. Kiss (band) may be a good title for a redirect, but it doesn't look properly encyclopedic at the top of an article, because people have the expectation that a title will fully describe the contents.  It would be preferable to redirect that to Kiss (American rock band) and use that as the actual article name. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Assuming this is done because of our readers' interests, I haven't hear of them, any single reader complaining about how we title articles. Unless you can prove readers are being helped by moving "Kiss (band)" to "Kiss (American band) or "Kiss (New York City band)", I can't support this. In that sense, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should not exist ([Kiss (disambiguation) to Kiss and Kiss to Kiss (activity); are we sure people is searching for the action of kissing and not Kiss (band), Hershey's Kisses or Kiss (magazine)?) In the strict sense, you are giving preference to a few readers, for example those searching Kiss (South Korean band), and not those searching Kiss (band), why it should stop there? This is one example of many. You are moving these pages for readers, but why United States, Cheers or The Exorcist are in the right place, but Thriller (album), Kiss (band) or Psycho (film) are not? Rather that a readers' interests protection this sound more to an "I don't like the way we title and I want to put my preferences" thought Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course this guideline would help readers. Our readers trust us, far more than we often realise. If a reader reads an article title that is "Kiss (band)", then they will assume that this article is the only notable band called Kiss. The purpose of this proposed guideline is not to get rid of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as you suggest, but rather to clarify that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC refers to non-disambiguated titles. We are aiming to get rid of "second-tier" primary topics (topics that are not actually primary but are treated analagously within a limited field); these "second-tier" primary topics are problematic for multiple reasons, as outlined above. If we consistently use disambiguators to disambiguate, we also reduce the number of hatnotes required on articles, which should only be necessary on truly primary targets. Neelix (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Our readers trust us", of course they do, the problem is that there are more important things they trust about us rather than the title of an article, for example the verifiability of an article--this is much more important than deciding if the album Michael Jackson Thriller is in its correct place. Your teacher left you to do a report about a the Peloponnesian War, would you trust Battle of Mytilene (406 BC)? I frankly won't, but unfortunately many people will do, and that's why people decide to falsify information here, even if it is the most trivial you can find. According to this proposal Kiss (band), for example, is incorrect because it is partially DABed, or in your words "they will assume that this article is the only notable band called Kiss". In fact, Simmons band may not be the only notable band called "Kiss", but it is the most notable of all bands that share the name, at least this is demostrated by their discography and the daily hits its article receive, even when it is already DABed (± 6,000), unlike the Korean band whose notability is based upon some references. I don't know if Kiss SK is notable in/out South Korea (they were a one year band, in terms of sales I doubt they sold 100K records in a year), but Kiss US is notable, not only in the US, but in the world. Also the Korean band may not be notable outside SK because "Kiss" is a registered trademark/trademark of KISS Catalog Ltd. in different countries and these girls will violate KISS Ltd. trademark rights (Registered under "ENTERAINMENT SERVICES RENDERED BY A VOCAL AND INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC GROUP").
 * Also, if we consider a casual reader (those who use Wikipedia sporadically) will not type "Kiss (band)" to search the US/SK band, they will type Kiss, and they will be redirected to a page with people kissing. If they read, they will see the hatnote about the DAB. In the DAB page this is clearly explicit: "Kiss (band), an American hard rock band" or "Kiss (South Korean band), a Korean female pop trio", then they can choose which band they are looking for. Now, if you refer to experienced users, those who will include the DAB, are accostumed to type the DABs. When I was a reader, before joining, this used to happen to me. In a few weeks after I started to use Wikipedia more I understood more, including article titles. Also consider the search bar, like Google, give readers the possibility to search an article with predictive text. If you type "Kiss", the first article is "Kiss", later "Kiss (band)" later Kissimmee, Florida, etc. If the problem is that "Kiss (band)" is not ambiguous in the search mode, "Kiss (band of South Korea)" should exist, at least, as a redirect, but not only this "Kiss (rock band)", "Kiss (American band)", etc. Also consider the probability of find an article in Wikipedia is better through Google than here, thanks to a) the predicted text, for example "bionic christina" rather than "Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)", and b) because Wikipedia appears in the top 20 results. Also, I'm concerned about this, if this is "for readers" why they cannot choose what's the best for them? AFD has its tag about the possible deletion of the article, split/merge as well, why RM discussions do not have their tag? If they find a move discussion, that's because the visited the talk page. To be frank, in three years I haven't seen readers complaining or worried about the title of an article being a "partial DAB", but because of A name is not B name, for example United States and not United States of America, or Kiev and not Kyiv. This proposal is arbitrary as I said, because Kiss (band) is incorrect because there's another notable band and readers may be looking for it, but Neptune is correct even though there are other notable articles the reader may be looking for. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I undertsand you correctly, you are arguing that we have too many arbitrary move discussions and that this new guideline would generate more. This guideline would in fact do the opposite; there would be less arbitrary move discussions if this guideline was passed. If we do away with the concept of "second-tier" primary targets, that will avoid plenty of long, drawn-out discussions to determine which article should be the "second-tier" primary. We have enough such discussions to determine which articles are actually primary without having to proliferate this process on sublevels. Neelix (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstood it. In simple words, why Kiss (band) is incorrectly placed when there are only two bands, but Neptune is correct, when there are many other articles with the same name? It is arbitrary to say that "People may not be looking for the American band" against "People are clearly looking for the planet and not other topics". Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have misunderstood me as well. I am in no way saying that "People may not be looking for the American band". I am saying that average users are are unlikely to type "Kiss (band)" into the search bar; average users are far more likely to simply type "Kiss" into the search bar when looking for the American band. Neelix (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if the reason is that, first Kiss should not be about kissing, should be a DAB page. Second, the DAB page is already specific about this:


 * Kiss (band), an American hard rock band
 * Kiss (South Korean band)
 * Basically it is impossible a reader is not obtaining what s/he is looking for, because Simmons band is not Korean and Mini, Jini and Umji band is not a hard rock band. Also this "ambiguity" can be fixed in the DAB page without modifying links:


 * Kiss (American rock band)
 * Kiss (South Korean pop band)
 * Your proposal is trying to fix something that it is not broken. Article titles are important but they are not indended to inform the reader what they are reading, that's the function of the lead paragraph, if not Barack Obama should be at Barack Obama Jr. or Barack Obama (President of the United States of America). As I told you, there are better things we should be worried more than semi-ambiguous articles' titles, at least for now. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you continue to argue against first-tier primary topics when this guideline only relates to second-tier topics. The main Kiss article should remain as it is; we both agree on this, and nothing I am arguing suggests otherwise. The fix you recommend (pipelinking the American band link) contradicts established guidelines on WP:MOSDAB and does not solve the problem that we are still going to be having long, unnecessary discussions about which articles are the second-tier primaries. It also does not solve the problem of the proliferation of duplicate hatnotes on non-primary-topic articles. Neelix (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Close requested
I requested this discussion be evaluated and closed, here: --B2C 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard
 * Before someone closes this discussion, should someone notify the impacted Wikiprojects? (e.g. Music, Albums, Songs, Film, Novels, etc.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All WikiProjects would be impacted; the ones you mention are simply the ones we have used as examples. I think it excessive to notify them all, and biased to only notify a few. Neelix (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Did this close request get lost? I don't see any uninvolved admin coming in to judge consensus, but I also don't see the request on the noticeboard. Powers T 00:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the request was placed at the wrong location here, and that request was archived. I don't believe that anyone has posted a request at the correct location. User:EdJohnston said he was considering stepping in and closing the discussion, but he may not be interested anymore. Would it be appropriate for me to request a closure at the correct location? Neelix (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tabulated those who support and oppose:
 * SUPPORT:
 * Neelix
 * JHunterJ
 * Bkonrad
 * Robsinden
 * In ictu oculi
 * Dicklyon (he writes 'partially support')
 * Ltpowers
 * Wnt


 * OPPOSE:
 * Born2cycle
 * Blueboar (doesn't want there to be a general rule on this)
 * Bd2412 (he writes 'partially oppose')
 * GoingBatty
 * Tbhotch


 * OPPOSED to disallowing New York (city):
 * Anomie


 * There's a sub-issue of whether redirects like New York (city) should be allowed, so long as they redirect to a specific target. I'm unclear on how that issue is resolved. I'll work further on this unless some other admin wants to take care of it. I'm not convinced that what Neelix proposed as an edit to WP:DAB is the clearest way to express the outcome, but something like that is probably justified. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion has precedents going back to 2007: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 25. That discussion went against the idea of 'incomplete disambiguation', and it was the impulse for creating the Redirect from incomplete disambiguation template. It looks to me that the plain language of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not envision the idea of partial primary topics, and I suggest that those who favor partial primaries might want to put a consensus for it on the record somehow. The clearest form of the 'partial primary topic' idea is Born2cycle's comment above, "In other words, the primary topic principles apply to all titles, including titles of redirects with parenthetic qualifiers." That idea seems never to have been part of a written-down policy or guideline, though some articles are now sitting at 'incompletely disambiguated' names that seem to rely on such a principle. Based on the discussion, I think Neelix should consider adding an appropriate summary to WP:DAB. In another 24 hours I might be able to propose what I think the wording is, but Neelix should go ahead if he wants . Whether this is a strong enough mandate to go ahead with moves of individual articles I have no opinion on. In case of uncertainty the safest option is to open individual move discussions. I don't see any consensus to eliminate New York (city) at this point. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put a closure box on the discussion above, but haven't written the final message yet. Will try to finish by 23:00 UTC on 8 June. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Closing: I'm acting on the request that was made at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close this. Neelix's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Disambiguation&oldid=557176063#Partially_disambiguated_titles proposed change to WP:DAB] fairly represents the consensus in this VPP discussion. I encourage him to go ahead with that change. There is also a consensus to allow New York (city) to continue to serve as a redirect to New York City. The opinions in the above thread are not strong enough by themselves to decide the fate of Thriller (album) or certain other articles that might be construed to rely upon 'second-tier primary topics.' That's because the size of the turnout and the margin of approval limits the force of this verdict. In case of uncertainty the safest option is to open individual move discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. You link to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Disambiguation&oldid=557176063#Partially_disambiguated_titles this] saying it has consensus, except that it presupposes that Thriller (album) must redirect to Thriller (disambiguation) rather than Thriller (Michael Jackson album), which you say does not have consensus. This presupposition can be seen clearly in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Disambiguation&diff=prev&oldid=556271734 an earlier revision] of Neelix's change, and I note that Neelix has acted on that presupposition, e.g. here. The presupposition would also require New York (city) to redirect to New York (disambiguation) rather than to the article New York City were that article to be at a title such as "New York (US city)" instead. Anomie⚔ 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a strong enough consensus to change the language of WP:DAB but it is not strong enough to perform moves on a lot of the articles mentioned in the discussion. If you also want to get all the disputed articles moved, open an official RFC, get it listed at WP:CENT, and get a big turnout. The disputed articles might not be there due to 'second-tier primary topic' reasoning, they might be there for other reasons, known only to those who participated in the individual RMs. This could be discovered by a wider discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion determined that a particularly disambiguated term shouldn't serve as an article's title, which doesn't mean that one mustn't redirect to an article.
 * However, if this truly has consensus (and I don't assert otherwise), Thriller (album) should redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) instead of functioning as the article's title. An exception would swallow the rule (as this is exactly the sort of situation that the change is intended to address — one in which an article occupies a partially disambiguated title because it's considered much more prominent than other topics to which said title could refer).  —David Levy 02:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @David Levy: If your reading of the above discussion is correct, then a move of Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) is consistent with the revised guideline. Someone could try doing that move without a WP:RM discussion but it risks being reverted. As a discussion closer I only close individual discussions. I don't have the authority to make everything consistent regarding article titles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that it necessarily would be prudent to rename the article without a WP:RM discussion. I'm noting that I see no basis for an exception in that case.  Thriller (album) is a textbook example of the type of article title now contraindicated, so if there isn't consensus to change it (or other article titles along the same lines), that calls into question the consensus apparently established above. (This is hypothetical, of course; I'm not implying that I believe it to be so.)  —David Levy 00:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion above specifically discussed Thriller (album) and consensus was that such articles should be moved to fully disambiguating titles. I expect that the article will be moved to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) eventually, but there are a lot of articles to go through and these kinds of moves take hours to complete due to the necessity of switching the corresponding links. Also, New York (city) is not a partially disambiguating title; there are no other cities called "New York", therefore it is a fully disambiguating title. It is therefore quite reasonable for it to redirect to New York City. Angel (TV series), however, is a partially disambiguating title and should therefore redirect to a disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that based upon the above discussion's outcome, the article should be renamed Thriller (Michael Jackson album). But this does not mean that Thriller (album) should become a redirect to the Thriller disambiguation page, which would be extremely counterproductive (because an overwhelming majority of persons arriving at Thriller (album) seek the article about the Michael Jackson album).
 * The agreed-upon change is to stop using partially disambiguated terms as article titles. This has no bearing on the resultant redirects' targets.  —David Levy 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "due to the necessity of switching the corresponding links" is exactly the sort of thing I'm concerned about. If the redirect at the old title continues to point to the same article at a better title, there's no "necessity" at all. Forcing the redirect to point elsewhere is the part that doesn't seem to have consensus here. Anomie⚔ 22:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't even mentioned in the proposal. Neelix may feel that it was implied, but I see no evidence that this was widely understood.  You inferred that Neelix might have had that in mind (noting that "the proposal isn't entirely clear on this point") and expressed support on the condition that this element be excluded.  Others appear to have been under the impression that no such change was even under consideration.  —David Levy 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Objection
I've explained my objection to the above finding of "consensus" here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. --B2C 00:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Policy Change (Images of minors)
I would like to propose that there is a presumption to delete images of people who are clearly under majority age where there is doubtful sourcing or no formal indication of an appropriate release from an appropriate supervisory adult.

This policy to change to apply to images uploaded after July 1st 2013.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some issues:
 * Define 'majority age'. In which country are we talking about? Britain: where you can join the army at 16 but cannot vote? America: where you can't drink until 21? For it to be a useful policy, we need to turn "under majority age" into an actual number.
 * Are you referring to images of people who are currently under age or people who were under age when the photograph was taken? For instance, this photo shows Michael Jackson age 14. If someone were to find and upload a similarly old picture of the Jackson 5, would there be an issue there?
 * —Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On point 1, majority age as defined by reference to appropriate community standards, in the UK this is typically 18. I would have no objection to defining to defining 18 as an upper limit, the wording 'clearly under majority age' was intended to say that the proposed policy change related to images that were clearly younger teens or minors, as opposed to images of say college students.
 * On point 2, The intention would be that the policy would apply to subjects who at the instance of the image being uploaded, would be clearly under majority age, at the time of upload. It would not apply to images where the photo subject was of someone under majority age (when photo created), but who is now over majority age and thus capable of objecting through appropriate process...

Some additional points,
 * This policy change would not be intended to apply where :
 * The image is uploaded by someone over majority age (and they are the subject of the photo). It would be unreasonable to bar uploaders from putting their own images (assuming the meet other Wikipedia policy requirements)
 * Images of high-profile figures, where the image is from verifiable 'official' sources, or has been released by official agencies ( such as photos released as part of law enforcement investigations for example)

Does this help? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Um what? Doesn't apply when the uploader is over the age of majority? And just how do you plan to acquire that information? I don't see the point to this proposal and it is more or less impossible to enforce anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * and they are the photo subject :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read that, you didn't answer my question. How would you verify either of those things? I could upload a picture of my 16 year old niece and say it was me and I am 19. How would you have the slightest idea if I were telling the truth? (answer:you wouldn't and there is nothing you can do about that so until you resolve that issue this proposal is actually not possible even if it were supported by the community) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that this proposal doesn't work because it's impossible to reliably confirm ages of uploaders,
 * This could be easily resolved by amending the upload terms, so that the terms you agree to when uploading include a clause like " If your image subject contains identifiable individuals not of majority age, you assert that you have an appropriate release, and are willing to provide confirmation of this via the OTRS system. Non-provision of this confirmation may result in the image being removed."Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sfan, I think I can see where you are coming from. Is this policy intended to prevent the invasion of privacy of children? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Partly, Yes. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What else then? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is to ensure that there can be no objection to images of people not of majority age Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How would you relate this to Commons' policies? Resolute 19:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-conforming Commons images should not be permitted to appear in the encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you give examples of presently-used images that would be affected by this policy, or examples of past problems with images that would have been easier to resolve if we had such an explicit policy? postdlf (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose at least as it's currently worded. Otherwise we're deleting landscapes. I have some sympathy for the principle, but it would need to be very carefully worded if it wasn't to do more harm than good. I doubt if such a policy is even possible. It would certainly be the end for a lot of Commons content that is just basic, innocent "children of all nations".


 * In my proposal I stated this would only apply to new uploads (after July 1st), The issue of what to do with existing images is a related, but different discussion.
 * When we can still have users like Commons:user:Toilet (the name is as obvious a hint as you might get) and their ongoing uploads of random women's backsides, still unchecked only because he seems to have toned down his previous "themed" image titles, then we aren't yet at a position to start censoring all images of children, simply for being children. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This was not about removing all images of children, It was about changing policy such that for new uploads there was a higher standard being applied. However as you are reading this thread, you will see a number of objections.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Whats wrong with a picture of a 3 month old baby? The baby anyways looks different in next 3 months. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 20:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess someone has to answer this question now that an image was added to the discussion (which I removed). At the age of, say 7, the child might be very upset that an image was used, without their, or their parents' permission on a very public site. Any parent should ask themselves, 'How would you feel if an image of your child was shown in WP without your permission?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry my style of pointing out the absurdity of this proposal doesn't comport with your idea of how we should discuss it, but I have restored that edit. Please don't do that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that you have the permission of the parents or other appropriate adult to show that picture here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Both images I have added here are hosted on Commons. anyone on earth can use them for any purpose they want. You seem to be asking me to prove they conform to this very new proposal that has basically no chance of becoming policy, which is just absurd. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As it happens, it looks like the child in the picture is now around 23 years old and thus able to object to the use of the image themselves so this image in not one that would be affected by the proposal. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable point, That's a crowd image, and it's a location where there would not be a reasonable expectation of privacy. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the point, it seems a discussion abotu image policy can and should involve concrete examples. So, look to your right. There are obviously children in this group. My understanding of this proposal would ban an image like this from being used anywhere on Wikipedia. I don't think that is a good thing and I don't think this proposal has been been thought through to examine all the potential ramifications. Also, many countries have "freedom of panorama" which means persons of any age in a public place have no expectation of privacy. Wikipedia and Commons have long held that this applies on our projects as well so long as the image was taken in a country that does provide such freedom. This proposal would, if it had any chance of being approved, be a fundamental change at the most basic level as to what we do and do not permit here. As such it needs a bit more than just a thread on this page to become policy. A formal, widely advertised RFC with actual specifics would be needed. this is basically so vague and obviously deeply flawed that I see no point in discussing until the obvious problems are rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, at Commons we were only now notified about this discussion. "freedom of panorama" has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. "freedom of panorama" is an exemption from copyright for photos of still copyrighted works permanently installed in the public; terms differ from country for country; in the U.S. valid only for buildings. It has no relation at all to photos of real people. --Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the policy proposal is meaningless (not even "flawed") without even an explanation as to why the proposer thinks it's necessary, with concrete examples as you said. This thread should be just closed rather than us wasting more time than what little the proposer spent thinking about it. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a disscussion, Rather than calling it 'meaningless' it would perhaps be more reasonable to continue to expose it's flaws in it's current wording, as you already being doing .Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? Jeepday (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would indeed be helpful if the originator of this proposal would give their detailed thinking behind it. There is a point about privacy. I do not think, for example, that we should show a picture of a child against the wishes of the child or parents even in cases where we might be legally entitled to do so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

From reading the comments some reasonable objections have been raised.


 * 1) It is not currently possible to verify uploader ages - This could be solved by changing the terms agreed to when media is uploaded, I'm open to a further discussion on a 'reasonable' wording for this.
 * 2) There will be acceptable images (meeting other legal requirements and Wikipedia policy) taken where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. -  What constitutes 'reasonable expectation of privacy'
 * 3) This would cause wide-spread deletions of existing uploads -  This change would only apply the higher standard (i.e age verification, release permission) to new uploads. Applying it to existing uploads would need a further community discussion, as the vast majority of existing images as has been pointed out are currently acceptable.
 * 4) This policy is that there should be a presumption to delete,  it does not say that the deletion should be automatic, which is an important distinction.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

SFan, can you explain the reasons that you wish to make this change in policy? Also, can you give some examples of wher this policy might be relevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to second (third... fourth...) that request. The value and nature of this proposal would be easier to judge if we knew what, specifically, you are concerned about.  Once we have that, we can then discuss (1) if it is desirable and if then, (2) how to mitigate unintended consequences. Resolute 13:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * These were some of my reasons for proposing the change :-

examples of 'responsible practice'
 * It is a generally accepted view that images of minors need careful handling, and I feel that Wikipedia should apply a higher standard than it currently does so. Wikipedia already meets minimum legal requirements, and there's no concern being raised in that respect.
 * It was felt reasonable that the privacy of individuals not of majority age (and thus not generally able to directly start due process directly) should be protected, This privacy extending to images of the individuals concerned. Whilst the majority of uploaders understand issues relating to privacy and child protection, it cannot be relied upon that all users would fully understand that by posting an image on Wikipedia, it could become highly visible, and open to uses towhich the subject of the image (their guardians, relatives, community etc.) may object to. A presumption to delete images without a clear release (the exceptions and objections noted) could pre-empt the sort of angry mis-informed complaints the subjects of images (their guardians &c.) might raise about media of which they are the subject, or have a close connection to. The 'release' being a confirmation that the subject of the image and the uploader understand the issues involved and accepts them.
 * Images with doubtful sourcing should be removed as it imposes an additional burden on downstream users, who have to figure out who they might need to obtain permission from.
 * Additionally I feel Wikipedia/Wikimedia (as a major content provider) should be supporting 'responsible' practice, as an example to others. In commerical use (which Wikipedia and Commons hosted media allows), responsibly run mainstream media, will not generally make use of images of minors without releases. Whilst it is understood Wikipedia (and Commons) are not (yet) legally required to obtain releases, by doing so Wikipedia and Commons will demonstrate that it's prepared to respect

However, it seems from the this thread, that there is already widespread concern about this proposal.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you raise an important point which should be discussed further. We should, in my opinion, apply higher standards to pictures of minors than we do to adults.  I think many who have commented and even opposed it have not even understood your proposal.  There is much irrelevant talk purges of current images, and legal issues for example.  It is a pity that on WP it is practically impossible to discuss principles without rapid polarisation of response.  WP is not the media and should apply different standards.  If users do not like your specific proposals it would be more useful if they were to suggest alternative ways in which we could protect the privacy and feelings of children depicted here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have accepted uncritically Sfan00's premise that there is a real need to protect the privacy and feelings of children that current policy and practices do not meet. That has not been shown in any way. It shouldn't surprise you that such a broad and restrictive proposal is being soundly rejected when no one has offered a concrete problem to justify it and a cogent explanation as to why the proposal is necessary to fix it. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of generally accepted principle that children need to be protected more than adults. It is quite likely that there could be problems that we do not know about in WP today. For example, in the child article we have this picture. Let me ask you some questions. Do we have any evidence that the children and their parents gave given permission for this picture to be in WP?  How would we know if they (children or parents) were actually rather upset by the picture being in WP? What would be your view if we somehow knew that the both the children and parents objected strongly to the image being in WP? What would be your view if you found that your children had been used in WP without your permission or knowledge? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Applying some logic to the images in that article (in it's revision as of date)


 * 1) Archive image from 1911 - Reasonable source (LOC) - Retainable as archive image with provable source.
 * 2) Identifiable group (clearly noted), but taken at an obviously public event, Own work.- Probably retainable, public event, so no reasonable expectation of privacy. Release desirable but not essential.
 * 3) (Map)
 * 4) Artwork, (Anicent) Individuals not identifiable, - Retainable, No identifiable indvidual in artwork
 * 5) Artwork, 15th C, Indviduals not identifable, - Retainable, No Identifiable indviduals.
 * 6) Photo, Flikr (No obvious indication of model release or connection to photo subjects), Potentially identifiable indviduals- Would fall within scope of proposed change as there
 * 7) Photo, Own work by uploader, OTRS for permission, - Would fall within scope of proposed policy change, but at lower priority, as OTRS is assumed to have contact details, so clarification on 'child privacy' etc can nominally be checked with the original photographer.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The above analysis suggests that a broad presumption to delete would be overly prescriptive. However, I still think that a narrower presumption in favour of deleting new uploads containing "recent images of potentially identifiable persons not of majority age, which do not appear to have been taken in a "public venue" are not archive images of the uploader themselves, and were they not published on Wikipedia/Commons etc. the subject of the image would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Archive images from 'reliable and reputable sources' exempted." should be considered. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless the Foundation says we need to. The Foundation would be the first ones aware of any legal issues with our image use, and they would tell us when there's a problem. Granted, we do need to be aware of legal photography rights in the United States and privacy issues, and that comes under the general catchall of the location of the servers. But just as we would not permit images that were taken by illegal acts (like trespassing), we'd similarly not allow images of minors that were taken illegally, whatever that means. That aspect thus gets a catchall in the general "don't upload what US law wouldn't allow", and doesn't require a new rule or a purge of images. --M ASEM (t) 14:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should be ready to delete problematic images, but aside from things such as the difficulty of verifying age (legally necessary for things such as pornography, but not legally necessary here), this proposal is going way too far. This proposal would result in the deletion of images such as File:Paducah Masonic Temple site.jpg, which shows a couple of girls (junior high age, if I remember rightly) who didn't consent to the photo.  Nobody's going to complain, because they're in the distance, they're facing away from the camera, and they're definitely not the focus of the photo, but this proposal would likely mean the deletion of this image if it had been uploaded here after this proposal were to take effect.  Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts on the image you mention.

So under the narrower approach suggested above this image wouldn't be affected. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Are the individuals the main or prominent focus of the image? No
 * 2) Are the individuals generally identifiable in the image? No
 * 3) Was the image taken in a 'public venue' ?Yes


 * Oppose If there were a need, I would expect the Foundation legal people to be onto it. Has there been any case that has brought this up, or is it a solution in search of a problem? Peridon (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What is comical about this proposal is that it is stumbling around groping for a policy to enforce... and such a policy exists... but it can't touch it because the discussion originated from the endless anti-Commons rants at Jimbo Wales' talk page.  Therefore the proposal doesn't look there for a carefully written, if unpleasantly restrictive, policy based on ten years of people uploading everything from baby pictures to child porn while a handful of admins somehow managed to balance respect for freedom of the press and Wikimedia's core mission of education with the uncertain legal landscapes of a hundred countries.  The reform the proposer might really look for - one which I might also oppose, but which would at least be a fair idea for debate - would be to say that Wikipedia should not accept uploads that are rejected on Commons under Commons:COM:PIP. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am new to this subject. Could you give me some links to the discussions that you are referring to.  The common link seems not to work. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that was the acronym - it's Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Wnt (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I happen to be the photographer of this photo of a girl getting ready to march in a parade, but I believe that it would be exactly as legitimate to use if it came from a Flickr account. And, no, I didn't have a release from her parent or guardian and, no, I don't need one. This is a person in a public place in the U.S., and I'm perfectly entitled to take and publish the photo, and her being a minor has, as far as I know, no legal effect on that. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 15:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with legality. Maybe some her want a higher standard than the legal minimum. You are perfectly entitled to take an image of an unknown girl that you own the copyright to an publish it on WP just to prove a point but what if the girl and her parents do not want the picture to be published? Do you care or is it just their hard luck?  Just out of interest, did you ask anyone's permission before you took the picture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would someone need to ask permission to photograph someone marching in a parade? Is Jmabel to shout to every parade marcher "can I take your picture? Please stop marching and sign this release!" Your position is just getting more and more ridiculous, and your concerns are purely hypothetical if not hysterical. Someone, somewhere, might be "upset" (whatever that means) that a photo of them taken in a public place has been uploaded and used in Wikipedia, apparently just for the mere fact that they are in the picture, not because of anything in particular that it depicts about them. Though neither you nor Sfan00 have actually pointed to any actual instances of this, let alone legitimate complaints that were not dealt with properly because existing policy was somehow inadequate to address it. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone taking a photo of a girl in a parade might have thought it polite to ask the parents if they minded a photograph being taken and published on one of the world's most visited web sites.
 * I am surprised you do not know what I mean by 'upset' it is a fairly commonly used term. For a child I guess it might refer anything from mild and short-term embarrassment to significant long term distress.
 * Regarding actual instances where people have been offended, how would we know? I am an experienced editor of WP and I do not know how I would go about getting a picture of myself removed from WP.  It would certainly be a very public discussion, which many people might not want to get involved in.
 * If there is any hysteria here is is from the 'opposes' who have had a knee-jerk reaction to what they see as censorship. Most of those who oppose the suggestion have not even understood what is being proposed and why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, perhaps we should acknowledge that there is a real distinction between law and ethics... what is legally permissible and what is ethically correct. With the obvious exception of child pornography, it is legally permissible for an editor to take a picture of a child, and publish it on Wikipedia. Once published, however, it is ethically correct for us to respect a child's privacy, and to remove that picture if either the child or his/her parents asks us to remove it (an exception to this are images of those who do not have the same expectation of privacy as the rest of us... such as child actors). The key is that the initial publication is based on law, while the removal is based on ethics. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While I commend your comment, I have to add a correction to your statement "it is legally permissible for an editor to take a picture of a child". Even for images of adults, this statement is true only in the U.S., China and Slovenia. As one can read from the table on Commons:Country specific consent requirements, in most other countries, consent of the depicted is required per law for publication of an image of an identifiable living person and in several other relevant countries (Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Switzerland) you need consent even for taking such an image. --Túrelio (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also a difference between removing an image (even if legally permissible) after community or Foundation review of a specific complaint, and what would effectively be a preemptive ban on a whole category of images. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This broad proposal is not going to make it, but we should still require all uploaded sexual images used in articles to state (in the image documentation or through appended contact) that the person is age of consent for the image, to address this and similar concerns. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This proposal was to do with 'child privacy' and proving images were reasonably obtained. Issues relating to explicit content are a different thread. In any case Wikipedia/Commons already has a legal obligation to remove explicit content of minors irrespective of other policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not here to discuss Commons, however, what do we know of the age of the subjects. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose : Moral panic generating a solution in search of a problem. Postdlf and Jmabel above explain it well. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - While this proposal seems to be overly vague, it does reflect the growing community awareness of the issues of consent in regard to images. After years of chipping away at this and related issues on Commons, we may have reached a tipping point. We are starting to see these types of proposals popping up here, on Commons, and even on Meta (with some of the same editors who have been the most obstructive on Commons apparently wishing to be seen as supportive). Commons (and, to a lesser extent, the various language WP projects) continue to be out of step with the 2011 WMF Board resolution on images of identifiable people - if the community does not act to correct this situation, it is likely only a matter of time before the WMF does. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone opposing this idea isn't saying it isn't bad, but because it is in legal territory we shouldn't react preemptively without the Foundation's acknowledgment for fear of being too protective (eg several examples presented already). Someone should (if they haven't already) ask what the Foundation's stance is on these images, and if they say there's a problem, we'll react accordingly. But no one has pointed out a legal law that says a photograph taken of a child in a public setting requires the parents' permission to publish, or anything similar, so reacting on the belief there's a problem would be potentially harmful to the project. --M ASEM (t) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But no one has pointed out ... - but I had so in my comment slightly above. See the table on Commons:Country specific consent requirements. --Túrelio (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * THat's not a change from current practice (eg the same rules apply here as apply there). The proposal being made here would impact any photo regardless of country of origin (eg where right now all those spaces that are green, we'd have to suddenly worry about children, etc.). --M ASEM  (t) 20:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Country-specific requirements are largely ignored on Commons. The number of images which violate those regulations increases daily as Flickr is duplicated on Commons with bulk uploads initiated by Commons admins. As for current practice here, I doubt that country-specific regulations are considered by editors placing an image into an article if the image is hosted by Commons, but I have no sense of whether uploaders consider that aspect of images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why there is language on Commons' disclaimers (as well as ours) that redistributors of such content are responsible for any media reuse they include to make sure that it does apply to the countries they plan to use it in. We here and at commons make as much reasonable effort to make sure that any country-restricted issues are noted (there's a template for personality rights, for example, which varies from country to country) but we'd need a dedicated legal-related team to keep every image marked perfectly as to any country image problems that might exist. Ergo why I don't believe we need to push on this aspect since, at least in the US where our content is hosted, there's no issues that I'm aware of legal restrictions of photos of children taken in public areas. --M ASEM  (t) 16:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

From the comments here, it would seem that a general presumption to delete DOES NOT have community consensus, which means that the proposal in it's current form would be unworkable. It would however be appreciated if someone could summarise what the basis of the objection is, so that when the next moral panic occurs, Wikipedians (and Commoners) have answers ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose legal issues should be left up to legal counsel from the Foundation, unless and until we receive such direct guidance, we should make editorial decisions here as though there were no legal problems with what we're doing. -- Jayron  32  04:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Like most of the 'opposes' above you seem to have completely misunderstood the issue. It is not about legality, it is about privacy.  Some people may simply not want pictures of themselves or their children to be published in WP; they may consider it an invasion of their privacy. For adults, there is a case for saying that is just too bad, you were in a public place and your photo was (in the US) legally taken and (in the US) can be legally published, however, for children the suggestion is that we take a more responsible line.  This is in accordance with a Wikimedia Foundation resolution which states, 'Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people may simply not want pictures of themselves or their children to be published in WP; they may consider it an invasion of their privacy. - These people are free to contact OTRS and we can deal on a case-by-case basis, depending on if and how much the request is reasonable. A blanket policy would do more harm than good. I totally understand it's a matter of privacy and not law; yet I feel it's a ridicolous overreaction. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I as an experienced editor, am not sure how I would go about trying to get a photo of myself or a relative removed from WP. How do we expect others to react when they suddenly see an picture of their child in WP, witout their knowledge and permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)
 * That you do not even know how to get an image removed from an article or deleted from WP or Commons rather undercuts your insistence that we must somehow do it differently, if you don't even know how we do it now or seem to think you should investigate that. You've had five days since the start of this thread to put some thought and time into figuring that out, instead of just repeating ad nauseum that we think of the children, who may be upset but not telling anyone. Time to drop the stick. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * strong oppose this is just ridiculous. If photos are taken legally and can be published, then they should be allowed here.  Anything inappropriate can be considered at FFD.  We are trying to increase encyclopedic pictures and content, not reduce it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion rather than conflict
Several editors have expressed 'Oppose' votes to this suggestion and several others have expressed general support for the idea although none, including myself, has gone so far as to give a 'Support' vote.

Is there any way that we could discuss what action could be taken to increase privacy of photographic subjects, particularly children, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation resolution which states, 'Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media...'?

Just to be clear:


 * This is not about censorship.
 * This is not about child porn.
 * This is not about the law.
 * No 'image purges' are proposed.
 * It is about responsible and respectful behaviour towards others and their privacy and feelings, especially children. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because a lawfully taken picture appearing on an encyclopedia is so horribly violating privacy and feelings. And here is my proposal: Why not having for each picture a relative discussion page where people can write about the picture, including complaining if it is their own picture and asking editors to take it down? Oh wait, it already exists! It is called "Talk page"! What an amazing coincidence. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, who cares, they are only people, we are writing an encyclopedia.
 * Or we could have a sensible discussion on improving our responsible use of images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, who cares, they are only people, we are writing an encyclopedia. - Exactly, my friend. Thanks for summing it up very well. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As soon as you start going down the road of saying "its to make us feel good", you open a door for anyone to start to complain and demand changes because they personally feel it is bad. We have policy and legal restrictions in place that prevent abuse beyond even what the law allows (BLP specifically) but there simply is nothing bad about taking pictures of children in public places where there is no expectation of privacy.  Until we have a legal requirement ( a new law in the US or the Foundation's own statement), its best to try to make law up for ourselves when it could interfere with other not-broken parts of WP. --M ASEM  (t) 17:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even short of being legally compelled, I'd take this a lot more seriously if we were shown that there have been a number of legitimate complaints about images of children, particularly if those complaints were not handled appropriately (or not handled at all). In other words, evidence that this is a genuine concern. We have none. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Time for closure? The original proposal does not have consensus Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming to this discussion late, but the proposal as worded would pretty much ban the usage of historical photos of children, including such notable figures as Alice Liddell. Pretty much all of the public domain photos here would be off-limits, unless the individuals themselves or their estate could be contacted to give permission (probably not feasible in the overwhlming majority of cases): commons:Category:Black_and_white_photographs_of_children.

More generally, I understand the rule's intent in protecting the privacy of children from people randomly taking snaps of them and putting them up on the internet, but such a rule would need to be carefully worded. What are the working guidelines in photojournalism or commercial stock photography? Those would be a good starting points. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, because when the use of a person's likeness gets commercial the rules may change, particularly if the likeness is being used to sell a product. Personality rights are somewhat analogous to trademarks in that sense, just like we can upload uncopyrightable trademarked logos to Commons because they are "free" in every way that we care about, but just see how free it is if you try to sell your own product with a competing company's logo. So I don't see the relevance of commercial practices and think it would just be a distraction to delve into. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Curiousblue - I commented on this far above in this section - there actually is such a policy Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people used at the main photo site for Wikipedia; the comic bit is that the people pushing this policy are motivated by a hatred of Commons, especially its acceptance of naked images of adults, and so they cannot make any use of it and need to start over from scratch. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is not a policy. It is a guideline, and one that is not consistently applied. Although that guideline makes references to consent, there seems to be no willingness on Commons to actually follow the advice therein. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen it invoked many a time, in just the sort of discussions you find most interesting. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Set NOGALLERY as default to all categories
Hi! I am just wondering why shouldn't we set &#95; NO GALLERY &#95; as default to all cats around the English Wikipedia, if it was possible. (Shows links to files instead of displaying it). I can't see any advantage of having the images visible in categories. Non-free images are allowed only in articles and copyleft images would be eventually moved to Commons (I may be wrong). ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 13:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that we can have galleries of free images, and that most categories don't include images, this might be the wrong way to go about it. It is probably better to have a bot generate a list of categories that include non-free media that are not colon-linked to have those reviewed and apply NOGALLERY where appropriate (most of these will but there are maintenance categories that we make exception for admin work). --M ASEM (t) 13:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can have galleries of free images, but should we? Thumbnails in Wikipedia categories serve no purpose, does they? One thing that contributes to the beauty of Wikipedia is her strictness towards copyright laws. (e.g., we don't usually link to Youtube videos, however helpful they are, because most of them are copyright infringements). ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, let's add another bother on users. Let them decode filenames and imagine what the file looks like. Perhaps we should hide the image on the filedescription and file history list as well. Just in case..... I find this totally stupendous. It's just one more step towards the 'let's abolish our fair use policy'. It's unfair on the average user, if this is what you want, come clean and simple open another RFC to stop the FU policy, don't bother us with details like these. I propose we don't abolish the images, but let's make them 10x10 pixels ! —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Even better would be a technical solution that blocks image files tagged with a non-free template from displaying anywhere but main article space. To the extent that category displays of thumbnails of nonfree images is even a problem we should care about, which I don't think it is. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's . Anomie⚔ 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, we currently have 11499 categories without __NOGALLERY__ that contain one or more files, and 4768 of those contain some file that is also in Category:All non-free media. Which means we have 6731 categories with only free files in them. Anomie⚔ 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know if that count includes files that are colon-linked (not to display) vs those that are direct linked (will display)? --M ASEM (t) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you put a file into a category and have it colon-linked? Anomie⚔ 02:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, crap, yeah, you can't do that, as best I know. It's the nogallery tag that controls that. --M ASEM (t) 02:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. Thanks to Anomie for the bug, the list and Special:Redirect :) So, we have a list of cats with non free thumbnails, but no bot to place 'NOGALLERY' magic word on them? ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 07:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I could write such a bot easily enough, if there's a strong enough consensus that we want to blindly add NOGALLERY whenever someone randomly adds a non-free image to a category. Personally, I don't think that's such a good idea. Anomie⚔ 11:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Allow modern images when possible?
I've seen people persistent that an article keep an ancient image of something up rather than a better, free image that's in color. I get that Wikipedia is pedantic when it comes to images, but why not have some sort of clause permitting replacing images? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You will need to be more specific - there is no policy against replacing images as such. Where and why do you think there is a problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It depends on the subject. At least in sports, the criteria is that the first picture should reflect a person in its peak. Like, you would use a picture of a driver in his 30s or so, not the latest. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Infobox is part of lead and it summarizes the article. So its always best to include an image that summarizes the article well. For example, a beauty pageant winner of 1930s should have her photo from that era and not the latest one of 2010s with all wrinkles and grey hair. I would insist on doing this for articles where looks are vital. For a mathematician whose looks haven't been of any importance, its okay to choose any image. For BLPs, this conflict of choosing images for infobox can always be heated as newer images are always available. For example, i would like it if Dustin Hoffman's image from 70s was used while he was at peak and is quite notable for that. But same logic doesn't completely fit Meryl Streep who is still churning notable works. In short, every case is different. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Pendantic image rules
I think it's difficult for your average person to upload an image to Wikipedia. The Wizard is pretty much a mess and there's such a huge preference on free images that there's always requests for deletion on fair-use images. I think most of the images on articles concerning major events are there out of pure luck. Am I just wrong? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The rules regarding images have to be 'pedantic' - we have to obey copyright laws. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This appears to be about Edward Snowden, a biography of a living person. Our rules are pretty tough for these kinds of topics. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is widely circulated, but without clear public use or licensing documentation, I've even regularly seen media use "test footage" with watermarks for "Not for Broadcast" on things like the Stormchaser video for that tornado story. Wikipedia has to be held to a higher standard on image because our coverage is long lasting, not backed by a major business or journalistic. The last thing we need to do rush to put media photos on Wikipedia articles when the rights to the interview is well-known and currently in use. A public domain image is really what is preferred, but a NFCC rational can be provided and challenged by editors easily. Its just the nature of the system and the law. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The wizard is a mess. The last time I used it it would never highlight the upload button, and I wound up clicking the option to return to the earlier version of the tool just so I could make progress. There's no doubt that the issue is complex, but that wizard seems more like a hindrance than a help.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of that is the underlying HTML5/scripting limitations (the upload button thing, I found, you have to tab off the last required text field, at which point it will highlight assuming all other required elements are filled in, this because the script cannot detect the text field change until focus moves). It is, unfortunately, better than just dropping the user off at Special:Upload. --M ASEM  (t) 16:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've often wondered why we don't just import the Commons Wizard to Wikipedia. It works very well, and I can't figure out why we don't use it here.  -- Jayron  32  02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I've been able to figure out, the Commons wizard would require a massive amount of rewriting if we wanted to expand it to cater for all the non-free image options and FUR stuff, and last time I looked I could find no useful documentation on how to do that. If anybody wants to dig into it and see what can be done with it, that would be great, but I predict it would be a major task. I'm also not quite sure some of the fundamental design choices are really suitable for us here. For instance, the fact that you technically do the upload first and only then get asked about the source and licensing issues might be rather counterproductive in an environment where one of the main tasks of the upload system is to tell prospective uploaders "sorry, but what you want to do just won't work; please don't upload this file". Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:File names no longer marked as a guideline
has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I reverted the test edit that overwrote the page, so this automated notice is ignorable. –Quiddity (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:IAR and WP:COMMON
Current wording at WP:IAR? currently has an addendum sentence, "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." (Original emphasis from page, not mine). Other than the obvious misuse of bolding, my problem is that common sense is no where listed as a fundamental principle, and in actuality the only thing above policy is consensus, principles really don't exist other than the fact that there is a bunch of pages that try to SUMMARIZE what our "principles" are as in what is common across all policies, guidelines, current way of doing things, and consensus agreements. I haven't seen "common sense" in the essay entitled WP:5P or User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, and it is not listed among the pages in WP:Principles.Camelbinky (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is someone suggesting that editors should not use common sense? Per WP:BURO, we do not have to worry unduly about Wikipedia's written constitution, and whether all possibilities are covered by the rules. BTW, the quoted text is at WP:What "Ignore all rules" means. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... whether there is actual common sense that is common to all people is debatable. My problem is semantics, the sentence states something that does not exist. Common sense is not a principle, it does not trump policy; no principle trumps policy or consensus, whatever that word means in Wikipedia-speak. And of course the bolding is obnoxious. I just think it is superfluous and was probably added by someone with an axe to grind and prove something about common sense versus those that believe in "no common sense". It's a left over of instruction creep and should be removed.Camelbinky (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You linked the policy WP:IAR but you are apparently referring to the essay WP:IAR?. See Wikipedia essays. This page is not intended to discuss essays. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you hope to turn an essay into a policy, then this is a fine place to talk about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion what Johnuniq is attempting to do by allowing that sentence to remain is to make it policy even though it is a sentence in a policy. There is no consensus or source for the sentence to say that common sense is a principle and above policy. It is not.Camelbinky (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR? is not a policy, so a sentence in WP:IAR? is not a sentence in a policy. The whole page is an essay. As the box at the top of the page says, "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a policy, but it is a pillar. Chris857 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He was talking about WP:IAR?, which is an essay, not WP:IAR, which is a policy and a pillar. WP:IAR? is an essay about WP:IAR. There has been confusion on this distinction from the beginning in this thread. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is a sentence in an essay that purports to state a fact to its own question (improperly asked and bolded in the first place, which gives it even added weight to being factual). This "fact" states unequivocally that this sentence is above policy and is a principle. In fact it is not a principle nor enshrined as anything above policy. Yes, it is an essay, but it is not worded as an essay opinion, it is worded as factual statement regarding principle and policy !rules that supposedly bolster the opinions of that essay. It is dangerous in that you are bolstering opinion for something that is not factual. Even essays have to be responsible and bolster their opinions with sourced material if it is claiming something as fact and not opinion, which in this case the sentence in question is purported to be fact, not essay opinion as johnuniq claims.Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's what that section says, for those who haven't read it:

This seems to me to be pretty much a fundamental principle. You can't have a wiki that anyone can edit, and you can't have a formal policy whose second sentence says, "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing", if you aren't assuming that people will act in good faith and with basic good sense.

What does WP:Ignore all rules mean? IAR doesn't mean "feel free to vandalize all you want, because WP:VANDAL is just a rule and you can ignore it". It does mean "don't get hung up on who types the most shortcuts" and "do what improves the article, after considering all the facts and circumstances, even if that's not exactly what the average article would need".

Wikipedia has a British constitution system. It does not have a statutory code. We have certain WP:Principles, and the expectation that users will use common sense is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Short of grounds for deleting an essay, the way to deal with an essay you disagree with is to write your own essay. Or you can be bold and edit it yourself, discuss it with its original contributor(s), etc., etc... I'm not sure a VPP discussion is appropriate for this kind of disagreement. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing I think you have mistaken what I am talking about, I never mentioned that section nor know exactly where in relation on the page WP:IAR? it is to the sentence I am talking about. Let me, again, state the specific sentence with its original bolding format (which is ALSO what I am complaining about)-


 * Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy


 * This entire rhetorical question and answer format is not up to what I am use to, even in an essay. The bolding is ridiculous. The answer to that question is absolutely false. Common sense is not above policy. Common sense is not a principle on ANY page, anywhere. Maybe if I bold things then it becomes fact.Camelbinky (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the paragraph immediately before the one you're complaining about, and it explains what is meant by "use common sense" and the relationship that this has to IAR, or, as it's more commonly stated, the importance of following the spirit rather than the letter.
 * Our principles are not limited to the ones that happen to be written on specific pages that are marked as "Wikipedia principles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you continue to discuss your issues with that essay at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means, and then anyone watching this thread who is also interested in what this essay says can also jump in over there. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did and no one other than Johnuniq responded, and claimed it IS a core principle. It is not listed on WP:Principle, it is not in the wp:5P and not mentioned by Jimbo in his statement of principles. It is an outright lie to offer "authoritative" backing to an essay. It is ridiculous to allow an important essay about a policy be worded 1) in a way which looks retarded and 2) is an outright lie. Before you know it people will start claiming common sense is principle. Common sense is NOT A PILLAR IN THE 5P!!!.Camelbinky (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you continue to discuss your issues with what Johnuniq has said at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means, and then anyone watching this thread who is also interested in what Johnuniq has said can also jump in over there. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who cares what's written on a page called "Wikipedia:Principle"? Are we not alowed to have any principles except the ones listed on a particular page?  If we leave out something like "In principle, we oppose the French spy agency from forcing admins to delete pages", does that mean that this is no longer part of our principles?
 * As I said above, this is a British constitution system. We have certain ideas of what's okay and what's not, and we articulate them in different ways and on different types of pages as the need arises.  The fact that something hasn't been written down in a particular way doesn't mean that we don't support it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a joke. All anyone ever does is yell at you about the rules. No help, no suggestions, no civility. Just you are outta line mister. Blah blah blah.. rules rules rules. Wikipedia should remove it and replace it with WP:ABSOLUTE BUREAUCRACY... Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one of multiple post of this nature from you I have seen today - You seem to be having a bit of a meltdown - have you considered a Wikibreak?Moxy (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Instead of attacking the argument or idea. Go after the person. In this case.. his mental health. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be having a problem -  venting on numerous pages trying to invoke an argument is not how we solve problems here. Again perhaps best you take a break and evaluate your situation and how you can go about fixing it.Moxy (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By then my page will have been deleted. yeah you solve problems by eliminating diversity. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with randomly ranting is we have no clue what your primary concern is or problems you have encounter. All we know is your clearly upset - about what is anyone's guess at this point. Moxy (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not upset. Really. Entertained a bit. Really confused. Maybe frustrated as hell with the editor which I'd like to call betamax but were still using it. Mostly worried. How is wikipedia going to work in the long run if it says edit me, you click the button, and it smacks you or shoots water at you. How can you even claim you could EVER even understand the word consensus? This is the tighted niche group since the manhattan project. You're like the copy with a comment box that has 1x1inch squares to write in and if you violate a 2 mm padding the form is invalid. Its like a game of operation but at taser voltages. So ignore all the rules but don't. And what a rule. No talking about other people's actions. Well congratulations Mr. 65000 edits. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not permanent. If something gets deleted in error, then it can be undeleted.  Even if it stays deleted, it's not the end of the world.  If it seems like the end of the world, then you may want to find a less stressful hobby.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It won't be for an accident. It will be for the reason that NO CRITICISM is allowed here at WikiWorld. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: WP:AURDNAME as a guideline
I would like to invite the editors here to comment on a proposal to promote WP:AURDNAME (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) to guideline status. Please visit the WP:AURDNAME talkpage and discuss.

-- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

how long should i wait for a response

 * Hi, how long should i wait for a response about
 * Transepidermal Water Loss
 * from
 * User_talk:XLinkBot / User_talk:Beetstra
 * regarding
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.147.7.215
 * It's been nine days so far.78.149.7.35 (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds of people who add dubious external links to Wikipedia every day, and it is not possible to discuss every case in detail. Please put a new message at WP:ELN with a link to the article, and the proposed addition, and invite comments. Edit this section to see the wikitext required:
 * Article Transepidermal water loss and diff showing link to www.tewl.wikia.com.
 * It is most unlikely that links to a wikia.com wiki would be considered desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:RS and shouldnt be linked to. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all external links need to be relibale sources; indeed, most of them won't be. Nevertheless, an external link to Wikia will almost never be acceptable, unless the article's subject is a Wikia site itself (such as Memory Alpha, for example). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry got my links mixed up, its WP:ELNO#12 not RS. Werieth (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Left-Wing's Stranglehold on Wikipedia Apparent in National Organization for Marriage Article: Biased Language
Recently, in the National Organization for Marriage article, I changed language including the phrase "same-sex marriage", etc., to more neutral language, and, as expected, it was quickly reverted.

Using the phrase "same-sex marriage" supports the homosexual agenda and promotes the homosexual ideology because it requires the word "marriage" to assume the meaning, "union of two people", instead of its usual definition "union of man and woman". Of course, changing the word's meaning in this manner is central to this debate. Until the debate has been conclusively settled and the word "marriage" means "union of two people" as the standard use, it should not be used as such in Wikipedia articles, or any other article claiming to be professional or objective.

It would be more neutral to say they are "opposed to redefining marriage", because that is precisely what they are opposing, instead of the phrase "opposed to same-sex marriage", which is biased as I've just shown. However, I expect the article to remain biased in favor of the homosexual agenda because Wikipedia is controlled by left-wing editors, who will simply say "the media uses the term, therefore we should, too" as an excuse. Please note (in response to this objection) that the mainstream media can hardly be held as a standard of professionalism, given their goals are to sell publications and advertising, and to create controversy (in order to further sales); it is also well-known that those working in this field are often themselves biased -- thus, it is not a good argument to suppose that a professional encyclopedia ought to use their language.

It is a shame that Wikipedia cannot be neutral or professional as it advertises to be. I would like to be proven wrong, though.


 * -- Newagelink (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The media uses the term, therefore we should, too. That is how Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article's talk page would be the right place to discuss this, not here. Regardless, the statement that we need to ignore all sources and drop everything to use the terminology you personally prefer because you prefer it is not going to fly, no matter where it's expressed. This is a function of using the most reliable sources that we have, rather than personal preferences, to build an encyclopedia. It is not a function of bias, though you're of course welcome to believe whatever you want to believe in that regard: such is the invariable human custom. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There definition of marriage is wider than just the modern Judeo-Christian version. (including such practices as polygamy, polyandry, and same sex marriage, in both historical and modern societies). Not using the term "marriage", which is also used in the vast majority of reliable sources could be construed as POV pushing -- Nbound (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia of Religious Controversies in the United States, page 449: "A number of national groups, including the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council, have been outspoken and politically active in their opposition to same-sex marriage."
 * This is a respected encyclopedia source, using neutral language to describe NOM. This wording is also used by same-sex marriage opponents such as the Southern Baptist Council who wrote a paper about in June 2003: "On Same-Sex Marriage" (same source.)
 * My take on the phrase "opposed to redefining marriage" is that it is politically charged, and in many cases false. NOM says they are against redefining marriage but in fact they have introduced legislation which would define marriage to be between a man and a woman, in jurisdictions where no such definition was ever on the books. In those cases, marriage would be effectively redefined. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not pushing the American far right's POV (by redefining language to fit their agenda) is not the same as pushing the opposite POV. This is not Conservapedia.  (I say "far right" because even the more mainstream right at least say "gay marriage").  "Marriage" has been used to refer not only to Christian matrimony but similar social constructs.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly, this calls for a pointless and drawn-out RfC. be sure to use the phrase "homosexual agenda" when drafting it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The phrase "opposed to redefining marriage" is ambiguous and U.S.-centric, as the legal definition of marriage already includes same-sex couples in quite a few countries (and a dozen or so U.S. states, for that matter). In those places, individuals opposed to same-sex marriage would be correctly described as "in favor of redefining marriage", or perhaps "in favor of re-redefining marriage".
 * The use of your preferred phrase would also display a regrettable historical blindness, as this is not the first time that the legal definition of marriage has changed&mdash;even (and especially) within the United States. Until a Supreme Court ruling in 1967, sixteen U.S. states still barred marriage between couples of different races (well, between 'whites' and others).  Alabama kept the anti-miscegenation clause in their state constitution until 2000, perhaps hoping a more God-fearing Supreme Court might eventually reverse Loving v. Virginia.  Are those "opposed to redefining marriage" in favor of restoring the 1966 definition?
 * The phrase "same-sex marriage" avoids these problematic ambiguities, and should therefore be preferred. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Even those who oppose same-sex marriage use the phrase "same-sex marriage". This is a non-argument. The phrase is common, neutral, and decades-old. —Designate (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What's Left-Wing about using the most commonly used language to describe a debate? (Unless calling something Left-Wing proves that it's wrong.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Block and ANI process is completely subjective
Recently there was a Hastey block from me out of an accident. And now, I'm starting to see admins are becoming more bias. So we need to find a way where bias isn't an option when it comes to blocks.

I propose a formal warning system along ANI. Before taking someone to ANI, there would be a warning given by an admin. Depending on the level of said warning, and the number of times ignored, they should can be sent to ANI.

These warnings may be saved through a log. But can be retracted if its just a mistake. Thisll make blocks not so fast and make unblocks much more easier if it was done injustly.Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Being an admin is alot of responsibility, it should be treated as such. This process should be done for the sake of users. It wont waste time. Its practically an ANI but instead of request block or ban request, it would be a warning. What warning would be more effective? One done by the accuser or by an imparcial admin?Lucia Black (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose in order to avoid wasting admin actions unnecessarily. I wouldn't want any of them to run out of admin-mana at a key time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There is already a warning system in place though (WP:WARNINGS) for multiple things. Admin cant block you without looking through your history first and if you have done anything that would be worthy of a block recently. Seeing anyone can give warnings I usually give up to the final warning before raising the issue up at WP:ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but this will eliminate blocking someone for a minor event because history showed something different. Example: an editor cant be blocked for 1 edit war if the history is based on personal attacks. That editor would have to be blocked because of that.Lucia Black (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A note about warnings and blocks; I have been editing Wikipedia for seven and a half years and have never been blocked. (This is not hard to do; just follow the rules and put the integrity of the encyclopedia above your personal interests.) Should I receive a warning from an admin or from any user who isn't an obvious vandal/troll, I will immediately stop what I am doing -- even if I think I am right -- and discuss it. I do not think that it is too much to ask to be given a fair warning and a chance to voluntarily stop the behavior before being blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you haven't been blocked in that amount of time, then you have been extremely lucky or you edit in only non contreversial areas. Which is in itself not a bad thing and not intended as an insult so please don't take it that way. But some topics are naturally more prone to drama like fighting Vandals, CCI, working at ANI, working on topics like religion, the balkans, etc. Its less about the editor and more about the situation the editor is in. Also, if you only do 5 or 10 edits a day then you can go a long time without attracting any attention. If you do hundreds a day though its much more likely to attract attention and the sheer volume is going to make errors and draw more attention. So just being a good editor doesn't keep people from getting blocked. There are a lot of trigger happy admins out there who will block first and ask questions later. You have just been lucky enough not to run into one. Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon seems to have hit the nail on the head rather well.  ·addshore·  talk to me! 15:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Warnings or other notifications are almost always given before a block, but sometimes, for example when a user makes legal threats or extreme cases of outing, we block right away and discuss it afterward. The complaint that "admins are becoming more bias" needs supporting evidence. (in addition to not really being proper English to begin with) Are we to take this to mean that you believe all admins are biased? Who are we all biased against? What evidence supports that claim? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. Therein lies the rub. Any links to "evidence" of "bias" will be considered a "perceived flaw" and then will be deleted for violating policy. Amazing how you can, so easily, control the debate here on WikiWorld.. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? Pages whose only purpose is to defame another user or be permanent records of supposed wrongdoings are often deleted per WP:POLEMIC but diffs showing this alleged bias against an as-yet-unamed party or parties should be easily attainable if this supposed bias is as obvious as is implied above. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope.. linking to diffs does not circumvent the policy as you claim. As it would still be linking to "perceived flaws". Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's complete nonsense, but could we at least get some kind of hint as to what this bias is and who it is directed against? Hard to discuss an issue when all the details are missing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how that is to be accomplished as your request violates policy. It does so as soon as you reference an editor and then complain. Obviously admins ARE biased as they are people and people have an inherent dependency flaw of their own interpretations and perceptions. So maybe you should document how admins are NOT biased and the reverse case is against policy. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly, moral relativism is not reserved to poststructuralists. I would submit, though, Jensen, that any admin would see this as a terrible BLP violation, and your edits on Ignore all rules as edit warring. For example. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You link to a diff page that is blocked. :) Plus now you violate policy yourself by posting links to what you percieve is my flaw. Not that I care - I invite debate. But you obviously didn't read the rest or see the irony of your claimed 3RR violation on WP:IAR. Which I have to say is pretty humorous from my point of view. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I didn't say "breaking 3R"--I said edit warring. It's not the same. The diff isn't blocked, it's hidden from view; after I linked it and mulled it over, I decided that all that stuff in the history, an atrocious series of edits no doubt sparked by some post on some website, should go. As an admin, I have to make those decisions. "Bias" is the wrong word to use: another admin may differ as to whether it should be hidden. Someone might even think they ought to be oversighted, so that even admins can't see it. That's not "bias"--it's judgment. Do you think I hid that edit from oversight because I'm a man? Or because I went to Alabama? Or because I drive a Camry? Or because I love dogs more than cats? Or because I'm middle-class? Or because I have a beautiful set of legs? "Bias"--pfff. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you further break policy by referring to my mistake of the rules. Again, not that I care. I did what I did as those people had no intent of discussing the change, but only to enforce the status quo and then to quickly move on. Also against policy. I think you blocked the diff out of overzealous need to dominate. A common attribute to power. And a bias. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to admit, you blocking the content moot the link and your point. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not my point. As you should know, since some of those now invisible edits are yours. You may not know this, but not all admins are alike. If I revdelete something out of policy, it will be undone. I referred to your misreading of what I said, not some "mistake of the rules" (your grammar is difficult)--pointing out that you misquoted me, is that an abuse of power as well? Good thing you're not in school, if you aren't. With those edits in that doctor's article, you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way I've taken the liberty of informing the admin whose supposedly mistaken block is the apparent basis for this complaint. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder also about the three separate admins who declined three separate unblock requests. Or the fourth editor who did leave a warning shortly before they were blocked.  This thread screams "everyone is biased except me". Resolute 19:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I am willing to admit I am very much biased. But I am no admin. In fact, if anything, I am an outcast. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're lucky you didn't get blocked earlier for BLP violations and edit warring. You're no martyr, you're not even a victim. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion just not expressed as fact. If you pursue your search you will see that I didn't make those comments but rather I tried to edit them into compliance, very much within policy. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep going on about policy. Could you provide a link to whatever policy it is you believe supports your position, or is that something else that you imagine to be against the rules? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When should Foreign character warning boxes be used?
Copied from Village pump (technical)/Archive 102, where it was asked by 115.67.34.95 but remained unanswered. I'd like to see a reply on this. Perhaps this is a better venue to ask? Question follows. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the proper use of and its derivatives, i.e. the templates in Category:Foreign character warning boxes? It seems reasonable that they shouldn't be included in articles where the foreign script in question appears only once in the first sentence, and they would be useful for articles discussing the language or its literature. But what about articles which mention several (read: less than a dozen) foreign names, but where the display of those names aren't essential to the understanding of the article itself (since the names are also represented in Latin script)? Their appearance is consistently aesthetically unappealing, whether placed below infoboxes or next to lead images. And there are even editors who apparently think that these boxes serve to list all the scripts which appear in an article. I know there are readers whose operating systems don't come pre-installed with non-Latin text support, but are these templates really still necessary? The context in which these foreign scripts appear should usually be enough for the reader to understand what they're supposed to show, whether or not it renders correctly. --115.67.34.95 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should consider getting rid of them altogether. It's not 2005 anymore, and the number of readers without Unicode support are dwindling. As long as foreign-language text is clearly labeled, readers can always use Google to figure out why the language isn't showing up (surely no one thinks there's a language composed of identical empty boxes). It's not like the template is useful; it just tells the readers "You might have a technical issue!" and forces them to turn to Google to solve it anyway, so what value does it add? We should make every attempt to make the page render on as many browsers as possible, but there's no reason to deface the article with a warning message just to give hypothetical technical support for an uncommon problem. —Designate (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The numbers of readers without Unicode support may be dwindling, but the number without a complete set of Unicode glyphs is still quite high. Just checking a fully-updated copy of Windows Vista with List of Unicode characters, I note that half the "Cyrillic supplement" characters are missing, as are a third of the "Arabic supplement" characters, the entire N'Ko, Samaritan, and Mandaic scripts, all of "Arabic Extended-A", 15% of the Devanagari glyphs, two glyphs from Gurmukhi, one from Gujarati, about 10% of Oriya, a Tamil glyph, 10% of Telugu, four glyphs from Kannada, 20% of Malayalam, 18 Tibetan glyphs, the entire Burmese script, one of the three variants of the Georgian alphabet, six Hangul glyphs and the entire Hangul Extended-A and Extended-B sections, Ethiopic Extended-A, the Ogham and Runic glyphs, the Tagalog, Hanunoo, Buhid, and Tagbanwa glyphs, possibly a glyph from Mongolian, the Limbu, Tai Le, Buginese, Tai Tham, Balinese, Sudanese, Batak, Lepcha, Ol Chiki, and Vedic Extensions glyphs, two-thirds of the "combining diacritical marks supplement", ten glyphs from Latin Extended Additional, the entire Braille block, the Coptic alphabet, about 50% of the CGK radicals supplement, four of the CJK tone marks, 17 of the basic unified CJK glyphs, almost all of Latin Extended-D, and all non-CJK glyphs outside the basic multilingual plane.


 * The big problem isn't the alphabets that are entirely missing -- most people will correctly deduce that their computer doesn't support it. The big problem is when only a few glyphs are missing, especially for something like Hangul or CGK that actually has a box as part of the writing system. --Carnildo (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely such usage as in the given link is inappropriate, though? I think there should be some guidelines on there use preventing this. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflict between COI guideline and Jimbo's "bright line" essay
In early 2012, Wikipedia had one of its every-once-in-awhile public debates about paid editing (or paid advocacy, if you prefer). I was a participant at the time—I myself represent clients on Wikipedia, though unlike many (most?) who do this, I care very much about always staying on the right side of policies and guidelines. A few things came out of this discussion, including the creation of two new WikiProjects: WikiProject Cooperation, focused on providing an outlet for company reps and PR managers to ask for assistance, and WikiProject Integrity, focused on policing paid editing activity. (These days, both are semi-active at best.) Of greater impact, however, was User:Jimbo Wales' most detailed statement on his view of "paid advocacy". In May of that year, he created a subpage in his userspace—User:Jimbo_Wales/Paid_Advocacy_FAQ—to express his views on the subject. His position, which is often referred to as the "bright line" or "Jimbo's bright line", is as follows:


 * I am opposed to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space at all, but am extremely supportive of them being given other helpful paths to assist us in our efforts to be comprehensive, accurate and authoritative.


 * This is a very simple rule that constitutes best practice: do not edit Wikipedia articles directly if you are a paid advocate. Instead, contribute proposed edits to the talk page, and escalate to appropriate venues on Wikipedia if you are having trouble getting people's attention.

Myself, I once edited client pages as a last resort—first I would seek consensus, prefer that others make changes, but if no one was interested and it seemed uncontroversial, I would make the change. Technically, this is what the Conflict of interest guideline says:


 * Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia.

Since Jimbo's pronouncement, I have avoided mainspace edits from this account entirely. However, this does not work as well as Jimbo had imagined. It conflicts with the existing guideline, so it does not have the widespread recognition it maybe should, and it places the burden of action on volunteer editors, while inhibiting small useful contributions from those with a financial COI. Late last year, an effort was made to answer this dilemma with a proposal called "COI+", which would have set a timeline for paid advocates to eventually make a change if there was no answer, but it failed to gain consensus. Company reps editing pages is a non-starter for many (and as one myself, I completely understand why).

Yet the problem remains, in part because there is no formal recognition of Jimbo's advice. This week I asked an editor to review a few suggestions for the article Winton Capital Management which essentially amount to copy-edits, though I've been waiting since May 24 for a reply. This editor found them uncontroversial, and said I should edit myself, and when I explained Jimbo's view, the editor argued to me that the guideline supersedes Jimbo's essay, which is in fact marked as unfinished. It's a classic catch-22. Perhaps the best thing to do is raise this question back at Jimbo's Talk page. And rather than letting paid advocates edit articles, perhaps the best thing is for Jimbo's view to become an official part of the COI guideline. I'm curious if anyone has thoughts on this here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't issue. I much rather see a paid editing tag of some sort in a editors username and a disclosure and center for such activity, but many are directly opposed to this because paid editing often means promotion and removing negative material. This has occurred hundreds of times with government, commercial and industrial interests doing this. Few volunteers want to sift through trivial correction or even deal with someone else's proposed changes; meaning long waits, low visibility and the conflicted issue for even the most benign editors; paid or unpaid, who simply have a COI. The Wikipedia community is undecided and like governments; reverts to avoiding the issue to prevent establishing even tacit acceptance or outright restriction; this does need to be addressed; but with the current state of the issues and the blow up about Gibraltar it would only be another turn of the wheel. Jimbo has been overruled before; but the spirit of the argument is the important thing; for this case a copyedit like that is probably okay because no rational person would object to cleaning up bad prose. Despite our history at WP:LAME, most people don't worry over trivial matters like this. Still... I hope others can explain the issue and where paid editing stands better than I. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the reality here... We can make all the "rules" we want on this... we can even create a firm WP:NOPAIDEDITING policy to forbid the practice, but as long as a paid editor follows our other policies and guidelines, there is little chance of detecting violators or enforcing the rule... There is simply no way to stop paid editors from editing. It's one of the down sides to "anyone can edit". Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @ ChrisGualtieri—there's a lot I agree with in your comment, though it sounds like you wouldn't support what I'm asking, i.e. seeking to have Jimbo's "bright line" incorporated into WP:COI. I suggest it because the other way has already failed, and I could live with either scenario; it's the uncertainty now that I'd like to resolve. @ Blueboar—you're completely right that creating a policy doesn't mean it will be followed by the unscrupulous or uninitiated, although clarity would be preferable if it can be achieved. If there was such a rule, at least then I could point to it when asking if volunteer editors can review my suggestions. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What good would that do? They'd say, "Why are you expecting me to deal with that?  I'm a WP:VOLUNTEER and busy with stuff that interests me.  Getting your stuff reviewed is someone else's problem."  This would just turn into one more backlog that people would complain about.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Informal request for comment at WP:COIN
I'm hoping that some of the fine folks here can participate in the discussion at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard before it gets automatically archived later today. In particular one editor (not me) has called for administrator intervention. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rampant arrogance in articles about mathematics
I was reading the page Limit when I was struck by a preposterous claim. "In formulas, limit is usually abbreviated as lim as in lim(an) = a". It sounds like lim is an abbreviation of limit when it in fact is a abbreviation of limes. You could believe that this case was an exception but after reading several other articles such as Natural logarithm (with ln = logaritmus naturalis), logarithm (with log = logaritmus), Sine (with sin = sinus) there seems to be a policy of denying history here. Why is this and why can't we stick to the truth here? ---Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you are saying. Maybe you can propose what you infer is the correct way? Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a content issue, not a policy issue. I suggest you bring it up on the talk pages of the relevant articles or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, being sure to provide sources that support your claims. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Limes is just the Latin term for the concept. We write in English, including using English terminology for mathematical concepts (assuming that our sources also do, which is the case here).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While agreeing that it is a content issue, not a policy issue, so ought to be discussed at the locations suggested by Beeblebrox, OP has a point. I read sine and notice that the term "sine" is used eleven times in the main text before "sin" is used, and then it is just used, no indication that sin is the same thing referred to as "sine" the first eleven times. Thereafter, both terms are used. If there is rhyme or reason to the choice it isn't obvious. A reader unfamiliar with the term 9which, of course, is the intended audience should be forgiven for not being sure whether the terms are identical or not. Why is one term used some times, and the other some other times. "Sine" is used more often when it is standalone, and sin more often when followed by an argument, but that isn't universal. the reader should not have to do forensic analysis to figure it out, especially, if OP is correct that sin is not an abbreviation fo sine but something else. Surely the etymology of terms is a basic part of the encyclopedia, so we ought to do it, and do it right.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted in Project mathematics as suggested. Project Mathematics--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @SPhilbrick: etymology is a basic part of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Our articles are about concepts, not usually about words. But the etymology may often be relevant to the history of a concept, and mentioned there. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Commons' Scope is now OPEN
I am pleased to announce the launch of a comprehensive review of our existing policy & guidelines on Commons:Project scope, and Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. This is an important review and will cover a number of contentious issues that have recently been extensively discussed both on and off Wiki. As background, you might like to look at these recent English Wikipedia Signpost articles:


 * The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons, a Signpost Op-ed by Gigs
 * A response to The Tragedy of Wikipedia’s commons, two Signpost Op-eds by me and Mattbuck in response.

Please visit the main review page to take part. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, I was expecting it to be another week before mine got published. I was going to do a bit of a rewrite. Oh well, publication, yay! -mattbuck (Talk) 22:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Make sure to mention that this has nothing to do with those discussions on Jimbo's page about Commons being broken. Because those had no effect at all. The nice people on Commons will be only too happy to listen to your ideas and respond politely, without calling you names or accusing you of being some kind of prude because you think Commons should not be hosting naked pictures of people without their explicit consent. Be sure to see the Request for Comment started in March about some of these same topics. (Rd232, the Commons admin who started that RfC, retired soon after his proposed guideline for Commons user pages was rejected.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That RFC uses the most convoluted, overly complicated discussion formatting I have ever seen. "No consensus" is practically guaranteed before you even begin... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, whose bright idea was it to let the mice decide how to divide up the cheese? Oh yea, the mice. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to imagine the thought process of whoever decided to divide the RFC into twenty-seven seperate discussions... Although I have myself been criticized for the unusual structures of some RFCs I have started, how anyone could ever have thought that would work is beyond me. (Blatant plug: see here for my essay on how to do these things. ) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-English content on user pages
I tried searching for something about this topic, but the search always timed out on me. So, please forgive me if this topic has been covered before.

Does the user page policy have anything to say about user pages with substantial non-English content? Occasionally I will encounter someone's user page where the content is entirely in a language other than English. I'll run in through Google Translate first to make sure it's not a candidate for db-spamuser. If it passes that test and is acceptable user page content, is it OK to stay even if it's not English? --Drm310 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't require userpages to be in english. But if the foreign language content they have would otherwise violate any other uses of userpage policy, it should be deleted; if it seems legit, it should be kept (I can see this being the case of a person who may have ESL and is trying to help translate foreign sources for us, as one highly legit use.) --M ASEM  (t) 15:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good to know - thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is content somewhere, or at least ambiguously worded content intended to relate to article talk pages that has been used to warn non-English native language editors from talking their own language on their own talk page. The ambiguity needs to be found and cleaned up. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Links guideline
External links had an edit done on 7 Oct 2010. The change was to avoid inclusion of online petitions in articles. Since then We the People (petitioning system) was launched and is mentioned in many articles. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_30 (7.) was brief and with little participation. There is a current discussion at Talk:Bradley Manning to have any mention of petitions kept out of the article. Is it time we reviewed this guideline change an re-worded it? The online government petitions do receive wide media coverage and many editors believe we should reflect that in articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems you have mixed up a couple different issues. Whether to discuss a petition in an article is a matter of verifiability and due weight, and thus subject to case by case, article by article, consensus. External Linking to the petition itself is not necessary, and is a matter of promoting a petition, which the pedia generally has no wish to do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have mixed them up but other editors are. Some don't want to include wide media coverage of petitions at Talk:Bradley Manning and citing this as the guideline to not even mention them in text. I can understand not linking to them but that may need clarification in the guideline. "Online petitions may be mentioned but direct links should be avoided" type thing. Pop over to the Manning talk page and see what I mean. I brought up the fact the policy may need an edit and was told to discuss policy elsewhere. I walked away but I think they are still locked in their discussion of it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there was any real confusion at Talk:Bradley Manning. Nobody suggested that the guideline forbids mentioning petitions. It was pointed out that the external links guideline prohibits links to petitions, and nobody seems to have queried it except Canoe1967. The discussion has been over the (lack of) media coverage of the petition - an issue of WP:WEIGHT. As for any proposal to change the guideline, I personally would object on principle to any change that singled out a particular form of petition specific to the U.S. as some sort of exception to the existing 'no links' guideline, and frankly can't see the need to revise the policy at all. It seems clear enough to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does read clearly but it was not written correctly. A wider consensus should have been done back in Oct 2010 instead of just a few editors on the talk page. The editor that did add it stated that he did it boldly. If I actually cared more then I would revert and then the next step would be discuss further. It is cited at the Bradley talk page as a reason for not including any mention of the petitions at all. There is wide coverage of them but there seems to be a deadlock on how wide the coverage should be. It seems we have to wait for five newspapers to dedicate their first three pages to the petitions before some editors will accept them as well covered. We could also wait for a movie, book, and three songs about them. Then at least we could include them in a popular culture section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are completely misrepresenting the discussion at Talk:Bradley Manning. The 'wide' coverage consists of little more than a couple of mentions in passing, as far as mainstream sources are concerned. As for revising the links policy, you are of course welcome to make a proposal - but 'reverting' a policy change made three years ago without yourself engaging prior discussion would be entirely unjustifiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a late comment, let me add that WP:EL says repeatedly that it has absolutely nothing to do with reliable sources for article content. I believe that the current count is that the EL guideline mentions this fact in eight different places.  If you need it to be in nine places so that you'll believe that it truly has absolutely nothing to do with what subjects you can talk about in the article, or which reliable sources you're permitted to cite, then feel free to leave a note at the guideline's talk page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-free Bible translations
There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Anthrax (UK band) vs Anthrax (band)
Anthrax (UK band) Anthrax (band) relates to WP:PDAB in archive 107 here. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocking IPs
When Wikipedia blocks an IP or IP range, right, don't they exercise some care and circumspection in order to limit collateral blockage? Like, they try not to block any obviously public IPs, and limit their blocks of homes and private businesses to a short time (e.g., 30-90 days).

Does anyone know of other websites that do not engage in the same level of care in blocking IPs in attempts to keep "banned users" from registering? Is it true that some websites don't care -- they will even block the entire NY Public Library system and City Hall just to keep one guy off the site. And keep these IP's blocked forever. I know of this one site that has done that, and has practically blocked the wireless IP's of every coffee and bagel joint in Manhattan's financial district. What gives?

Why do they no care? Pams Ale House (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read Blocking IP addresses, which should answer any questions you have about blocking IPs or IP ranges on Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally when IP addresses are blocked, they are soft blocked, which means that registered users using those addresses can continue to sign on, which minimizes collateral damage. IP addresses are only hard-blocked in extreme cases.    Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on editing other user's article talk page comments with Flow
Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. Your input would be welcome. The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Extend WP:disruptive editing to include an unbearable incompetence
Some thoughts induced by user talk: Arthur Rubin and messages at user talk: Pirokiazuma. The current formulation of “disruptive editing” focuses on the chronic case: over a long time or many articles. But IMHO a short-time disruption is also a disruption, and the question is merely to estimate whether the user is able to contribute productively in the near future, or s/he will continue disruptions further if not blocked or deterred in other way. An acute case should be included to the policy or, better, several stereotypical, easily recognizable cases. I propose to discuss the case of unbearable incompetence.

This concrete WP:Randy was blocked as a vandal first, which was not the case. I’m sure that many Randies were blocked in the past for false accusations. As these editors do not have a merit, as they are detestable for most contributors, consequently nobody tried to defend them from unjust punishments. But it is a hypocrisy. If one is blocked with the “vandal” substantiation, then s/he has to be a vandal, not a person so harmful as vandals are in opinion of the administrator. So, it would be honest to classify acute Randies with their dedicated subcategory of disruptive editors: unbearably incompetent editors.

We must establish some formal conditions to check against an abuse. I propose the following set. First, the user in question has to edit more than one mainspace page during the last 72 hours (otherwise a page protection can be an option) and to make no less than 4 edits during the last 24 hours which were reverted by other editors (distinct from potentially blocking admin, though) and not defended by any other editor in a good standing (I mean, an account which does not look like a sock or a meatpuppet of the same editor in question).

Second, the user has to violate at least one behavioural policy: to conduct an WP:Edit war, or to make a personal attack, or to commit a serious breach of WP:talk page guidelines such as a censorship attempt or refactoring other’s postings. Removal of AfD templates also can be counted in this paragraph. I think, a list of typical offences can be compiled.

Third, the user must be warned before the last offence. Warned both for a general disruptivity and a concrete type of offence s/he makes. “Offence” means either something from the second (previous) paragraph, or just reinstating an already rejected edit, no matter to the same article or to a new one.

If all three conditions are met, then an admin should be able to block the user. A seasoned contributor shall be blocked for a medium to long term (a week or over), new users shall be blocked indefinitely. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence that this is an ongoing problem? Creating a whole new set of complex rules to deal with a single case looks to me like overkill. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have WP:CIR and WP:CLUE, but Hanlon's razor applies. If the editor refuses to get a clue, then they are typically dealt with as circumstances allow; it is much more irritating to have someone make strawmans and drag out matters to drive away other editors; that is WP:DE and it generally is not a single page event. The whole RANDY issue is difficult because people are likely to enable and AGF because they do not realize sword-wielding skeletons; primarily in the case of esoteric subjects with few editors, exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither CIR nor CLUE are official. WP:AGF has nothing to do with my proposal: making an evil thing after warnings is, theoretically, a blockable offence. “Enablers” is something which I read about, but rarely saw in practice. I knew only one enabler (of mainspace Randies) in ru.wikipedia, and some borderline cases here though related to the “struggle for etiquette”, not to content issues. Esoteric subjects – yes, they exist, but a Randy rarely restricts himself to an esoteric subject only. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a single case: I investigated several and likely saw many more in histories. It is not a “new set”: it is intended to enforce existing policies, guidelines, and recognized best practices such as WP:BRD. The problem is not new, of course: I do not pretend that there is some surge in Randies in 2013. But they can destroy Wikipedia some day, after experts became too tired to defend articles. BTW, IPs should not be excluded too: they are sometimes disruptive and difficult to catch a block due to the double standard. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems counter to AGF; so what you are proposing will not stand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This was a one-off low-level problem that was easy to deal with. The disruption was very specific and geared to limitations/errors of the particular editor. I cannot see any point in trying to suggest this might be a more general phenomenon. By wikipedia standards, it was dealt with fairly quickly. Wikipedia was not under threat and these particular circumstances required no special expertise. Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was dealt relatively quickly due to Pirokiazuma’s suicidal attitude… but a Randy with a lower dick pressure possibly would continue his disruptions for several days more, if not weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Today it appeared that the problem is far from being solved. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out what you are attempting to solve. WP:COMPETENCE may be an essay, but I'm far from the only admin that will block based on its reasoning. If you wanted to turn it into a formal guideline, you'd probably find widespread support.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to have a practically applicable (although restrictive) policy which could eject a Randy in 2–3 days. Not general reasonings about types and origins of incompetence, but definite steps from first signs of content disruption to the block. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably won't ever get consensus for that. The bright-line rules (like 3RR) are difficult to get people to endorse, and probably lead to more discussion rather than less. Any automatic set of thresholds that led to indefinite blocking aren't going to fly.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If one cannot change anything in blocking policies, then we should anticipate that Wikipedia will continue with slow, but steady increase of hypocrisy in its social structure. Now I’m not sure neither that Wikipedia deserves so much of my time, nor that I took a right decision when chose English Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "If one cannot change anything in blocking policies, then we should anticipate that Wikipedia will continue with slow, but steady increase of hypocrisy in its social structure"? Why? How will not changing one thing lead to an increase in another? AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Read my second paragraph from above, please. When somebody is disruptive and clearly useless, s/he has a high chance to get a block under a false pretext. A rare sysop can type something like “this editor damages such-and-so” in the block reason field. Usually, some convenient, but false substantiation like vandalism and spamming is cited. This is a hypocrisy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you are correct, and incompetence is being mislabelled as vandalism, that doesn't explain why not changing anything is going to make it happen more often. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should add WP:CIR to the examples of essays that admins block over at WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays.
 * Also, depending on the circumstances, a few days can be "a long period of time" under WP:DE. We don't specify a minimum time period.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that something should be done about unbearable incompetence. I partly disagree about "hypocrisy" and "false pretexts" in blocking such users.  Just because there is no perfect template for warning a user does not mean that a template should not be used with an explanation.  Today I had to use the disruptive editing template on an IP address in Romania for posting nearly incomprehensible comments, apparently about a mathematical algorithm that I had not been editing, on my talk page.  (The foreign editor apparently not only has inadequate mastery of English, but is also confused.)  I provided an explanation.  I agree that completely incompetent users should be blocked, and that the essay on competence should be upgraded to a guideline or even a policy.  (The distinction between policies, guidelines, and essays has never been a bright line.)    Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to veer off-topic for a second and point out that the dividing line between policies and guidelines on one side, and essays on the other, is that essays do not have to have consensus. They can be an explicit statement of a view that has not achieved general acceptance, at least not yet.  If you disagree with a policy or guideline, you should try to get it changed, seeking consensus for the change; if you disagree with an essay, that's inappropriate in general, because the authors are ordinarily entitled to present their views.  --Trovatore (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been a spate of blocking/unblocking recently  of editors who believe themselves to  be working  in  good faith  but  who persistently  get  things terribly  wrong. As the majority  of these users who  fall  under WP:CIR are most  probably  very  young, when cautioned, they  often respond with  righteous indignation, and trespass into  the no-no areas of PA and incivility when they  have sufficiently exasperated  the community  to  the extent that  they  end up  getting  topic banned or or even indef blocked. One of the problems is that  while we can adopt  users and mentor them  in  the ways of Wikipedia, it  is not  within  our  remit  to  be pedagogues and help  them  grow up -  maturity  only  comes with  time. If  they  have to  be blocked or have their editing  rights limited to  certain  conditions, then that  is the only  solution. It's often argued that  citing  WP:CIR is not  appropriate - maybe because it's 'only' an assay, but  I'm beginning  to  see it  as needing  promotion  to  a guideline that  can be cited without  controversy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with the guideline/essay, though I don't really like it when people cite it because suggesting that someone is incompetent seems kind of rude. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The majority by activity, but not by threat which they pose to an encyclopedia exactly due to your “no-no areas” explication. Look at user talk:50.73.253.49 (previously user talk:99.102.158.150, the same person) for an example of an unbearably incompetent editor without an apparent youngster’s behavioural pattern. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

RUDE!
I had a wellcome message from an administrator and tried to answer "thank you" in his page without my user name, I hadnt logged in. Then I suddenly saw a message that I was not allowed to edit -I was blocked with a non specific message. I can still edit with my user name so if anybody has a problem with my edits (and I really can not imagine who and why) he must also block this account to. The messsage goes like that "Editing from 46.103.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by CT Cooper for the following reason(s): Long term abuse: Range being used by Antony1821." I beleive it s a mistake but nevertheles when somebody can block just because he-she is an administrator, shouldn' he at least explain why? Shouldn't the blocked one know what he or seomebody else from his PC has done? It is really absolutely rude to block without explanations. Even if I wanted to ask to be unblocked (to "appeal")- I certainly would consider a priority to know what exactly the accusation is about. I am deeply dissapointed and I strongly suggest to be polite with women and men editing. It is absolutely necesssary to be polite and explain the reasons you block. This (the polite explanations) must be a central dicisionOlmav (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me try to clarify the situation for you:
 * It appears your underlying IP address is blocked as part of what is called a range block, a tool used to stop abusive users who use multiple IPs.
 * Clearly your account is not blocked or you would not have been able to make this post.
 * This is not a reflection on you and you are not the intended target.
 * There is in fact an explanation, you have quoted in your message: the same IP range you are using has been used by a long-term-abuser of Wikipedia.
 * The reason you were not informed is that until you posted this message nobody knew what your IP was. The fact that the same range was used by an abusive user is simply a coincidence.
 * I hope this has helped clarify this matter for you, I will also inform the admin who issued the block of this thread in case they have anything to add. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It turns out the admin who issues the block is currently not available due to real-life issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've modified the section title so that it doesn't break the WP:DASHBOARD. 64.40.54.200 (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quiqk response, still it is a matter of principle to be polite by giving explanations a priori, explaining the action you take when you block: i.e. "because of your article so and so". Making the accusations public is a basic democratic and legal principle not only for the abuser whom one blocks. It protects the entire community -the "good guys" included. I wont refer to this again though I m still blocked. Thank you once moreOlmav (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not blocked. Your IP range is, and it is well explained why. When blocks to users are given, rest assured it is done with extensive explanation and discussion. If you have an account, by the way, you definitely should use it and not edit anonymously -even if in good faith, it is still sockpuppetry and may create problems. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience! -- Cycl o pia talk  09:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also probably worth pointing out that (unless they have checkuser rights, which most don't) the blocking admin has no way of knowing who else is using the IP range when they perform a rangeblock - they therefore can't notify you in advance, because they don't know you're affected. As long as you are logged in, you can edit freely, and editing while logged out of your account is inadvisable anyway. Essentially, this block doesn't affect you at all - it was not directed at you, allows you to edit and is not entered in your own history. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with Olmav’s point. If a range is used by a known enemy of people, then it is a sufficient reason to issue a WP:SOFTBLOCK. WP:IP addresses are not people, and this technical condition does not imply that Wikipedia disfavours any of other contributors from the range. "[B]ecause of your article so and so" – sorry, it is silly and completely naïve. All that a legitimate user should know is that s/he needs to log in: an exposition of the vandal’s achievements is redundant and even harmful. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have modified the reason to anonblock. In my opinion, long-term soft rangeblocks should almost always use a block reason that 1) doesn't accuse the user of any wrongdoing; and 2) explains to innocent users how to get an account. If the targeted user has been abusive to the point that a rangeblock would be necessary, chances are they know how to sock already, so such a message won't be giving them any help. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Verifying the identity of someone who claims to know the article's subject
I recently ran across a case of someone who said she was the wife of an article's subject and was saying we got certain biographical details wrong (kids). Is there some sort of a procedure in place for verifying that she is who she says she is, or a WP: help page with suggestions? (Note, the user in question is User:Judyameredith.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would advise her to provide the correct information on the article's talk page. If she can provide a reliable source, then the article will almost certainly be corrected based on the verified information.  It isn't important to verify whether she is who she says that she is.  It is more important to verify whether the information that she supports is reliably sourced.  (If she is who she says she is, she is a primary source, and one with a conflict of interest.  Alternatively, you can post the information to the article's talk page, and it would be helpful if you would look for a reliable source.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we normally remove poorly sourced personal material if anyone brings it up as incorrect. Just my 2c worth though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We remove poorly sourced personal material from articles. I see no reason to remove poorly sourced personal comments from talk pages unless they violate some other policy.  I think that poorly sourced comments that may be associated with the subject should be left on article talk pages.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant. Remove the material from the article until the material on the talk page is well sourced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Canoe1967 hits the nail on the head here. There are two unrelated issues.  1) When someone brings badly sourced information to our attention, we fix it by removing the bad information.  If someone provides better sources, we use those to correct or amend the information.  2) We don't particularly need to verify who she says she is.  We can take it at face value, or ignore her claims, because it has no bearing on the article content.  Either the sources for the contested information exist or they do not.  If they do, cite them.  If the do not, remove the info.  Who she says she is is irrelevant.  -- Jayron  32  01:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the clarification and the advice. I've asked her for a source (not sure if she'll respond) and rephrased the article to something that will work until a good source is found. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Update:...after digging into this some more, and after receiving an email from a person who knows the subject, it seems that the online sources have it wrong as well. The person I'm communicating with has volunteered to obtain a signed letter from the subject and to publish it online as a "primary" source. My concern is, will this "primary" source be able to trump the "secondary" sources that seem to have gotten the details wrong? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an essay at WP:Inaccuracy that discusses this issue. The WP:DUE weight assigned to the primary and secondary sources is a function of editorial opinion.  The first question is whether the primary source is a WP:RS for the information being considered.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If is just the children and wives that are in question then you could probably delete the whole family section as undue and contentious. He isn't notable for his family life. If someone doesn't like removing it then just change it to X number of wives and X number of children. I don't know why that tabloid bit is in his article about one of his sons. It belongs in the son's article if one exists.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Unscintillating, thank you, that is the page I was looking for. @Canoe1967, I may end up doing just that. Thanks all! ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct information always trumps incorrect information. It is better to have unsourced correct information rather than sourced error, if you are convinced that the error is an error. This is where the policy of IAR comes in. If it's wrong, and you know it's wrong, fix it. Fix it in a sourced way if you can; but fix it regardless. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Allegation that Adam Lanza edited Wikipedia
Investigative report finds Adam Lanza - Sandy Hook serial killer - edited Wikipedia.

"Mass Murders Captivated Online User Believed To Be Adam Lanza".
 * "Between August 2009 and February 2010, the same user name linked to Lanza made revisions to 12 Wikipedia entries about massacres across the world during the same 2009 to 2010 time frame as the gun website and gaming chat-room posts. One entry meticulously specifies the weapons Kip Kinkel used at the age of 15 to kill his parents before going on a shooting spree at his Oregon high school, where two were killed and 25 were wounded in May 1998."

Is there a policy about Wikipedia edits made by mass murderers? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of policy are you hoping to find? postdlf (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * concerning criminals editing on subjects related to their crimes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) So what should we say? "If you are a criminal, you may not edit articles on subjects related to your crimes"?  Even if such a policy would do any good, and it's hard to imagine that it would, in the time period you speak of, I am unaware of any crimes Lanza might have committed.  So what then? --Trovatore (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But what's the policy you are looking for here? If you have reason to question an editor's judgment or neutrality, then review their edits to see if they are verifiable and NPOV and/or notify other editors on the affected article's talk pages. That's just sound judgment; you shouldn't need a written edict somewhere to tell you that, or any "policy" specifically tailored to this particular case. So, no, we do not have "a policy about Wikipedia edits made by mass murderers." postdlf (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and this is all assuming you're not talking about someone using WP itself to threaten or commit a crime or harm to others, correct? Because that would be a completely different situation than merely discovering after the fact that someone who committed a heinous act had edited WP years ago. postdlf (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Provided he hasn't edited articles related to his crimes (do they have internet in prison?) then there is unlikely to be a WP:COI violation. Most editors edit within their area of expertise so that isn't really a concern in itself. We do have policies against "outing" editors though, so hopefully editors won't try to identify him. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's basically public information now so outing can't really be a concern - first page of my first Google search. And you're crazy if you think editors aren't going to try and figure it out; our species is obsessed with violence and the perpetrators thereof .   Sædon talk  23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a (generic) ethics policy (of any kind)? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP:Five pillars is as close as it gets. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Other than policies regarding conduct, no. I don't think it should either; everyone is entitled to edit Wikipedia regardless of their political views, personal perception of society, religious beliefs as well as any other possible discriminants as long as their edits comply with Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've occasionally thought that having an ethics policy, along the lines of a professional code of ethics, would be a good thing, but I can't see one being accepted. What there is of a code of ethics is embedded in the policies, guidelines and terms of service. - Bilby (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is probably using words defined by William Chester Minor, another murderer. Have we got a policy to prevent this? - X201 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jimbo used to reserve the right to ban people for "bringing the project into disrepute" simply because of who they are. I think he had pedophiles in mind when he said that. Such things can still be done by office action if something extreme is going on, like a mass murderer is actively editing Wikipedia from prison. But I'm not sure what policy the OP is searching for here. What, retroactively deleting content from Wikipedia because it was added by a guy that later killed people? Totally unnecessary, but maybe I'm misreading. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why should we care about who edits? Let us care about the edits themselves. You can be the worst children-eating monster in the world, but if you do good edits to the wiki, you should be allowed to edit. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with this would require some sort of foreknowledge about who is going to to what. Lanza likely edited prior to the shootings, since editing Wikipedia postmortem is still difficult not possible. That said, many prisons have internet (see Internet in prisons) and screening IPs would be doable, though difficult. Maybe create a Shared IP template for prisons? -- Auric    talk  11:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should we screen? I find it ethically disgusting to screen prisoners. For them, editing Wikipedia constructively is something positive they contribute to society, and it is maybe even something that helps bringing him back to society (following rules with other users, being polite and respectful, collaboratively constructing something). And we aim to block that? -- Cycl o pia talk  11:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to block, but to identify, as with and . I have no problem with prisoners making decent edits, but with the few that probably vandalize. --  Auric    talk  11:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if editing information from 2009-2010 is relevant to any actual Wikipedia article I can think of. Are we going to vet and try to ascertain if every single edit to any kind of article about the human pain and misery that murder causes came from an IP or a user-account somehow associated with the perpetrator?  Is every editor who contributed to crime articles going to be retroactively vetted now?  Are we in danger of being outed because we watch over matters that attracts the worst kind of vile edits imaginable?  Besides, where would the stated information be pertinent to this encyclopedia?  The matter about the Lanza information has also been raised at the Sandy Hook Talk page, but would this information be pertinent to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting?  Why would it fit there?  To me it seems to be ghoulish information that is inappropriate to the project.  How about I go out and do research on the Hartford Courant and come up with a sensational headline that perhaps could state "Mass Murderer Adam Lanza Read Hartford Courant Every Day" and somehow get it published in a reliable source?  Would that information be appropriate to add to the Wikipedia article about the Courant?  Besides, even if this person did edit Wikipedia, did the account vandalize?  Did it add unsourced information?  Did it do anything that warranted any Warnings on his account?  No?...then, barring a policy/guideline change or specific guidance about this issue from WMF legal, it appears to me to be none of our business.  I do not know and will not do any research to figure out what the account is, but would ask if the alleged account's talk page could possibly be protected to keep any extraneous postings from showing up there with this being in the news. Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's clear a few things up:
 * Adam Lanza is not a serial killer, he was a spree killer
 * I say "was" because he killed himself at the end of his killing spree, so there is literally no chance he editied any articles related to his crimes.
 * We don't even know the username, and even speculating about it on-wiki would constitute WP:OUTING, and it would be a really poor idea to start stirring up suspiscions of this sort without any verification.

So I don't see anything we can or should be "doing" about the possibility that he edited some articles several years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Certain infamous criminals could bring disrepute to the project for their involvement in certain subjects. The Courant investigation linked in the OP just came out. We'll see how it plays out, it could take on a life or not. Nobody has yet identified the userid in question, though it would be trivial to figure out by following the clues in the Courant, and being infamous and dead privacy is less of an issue for outing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion here here (sorry, started it in two spots originally). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So what do you think we should do? Revert all of his dozen or so edits made years ago, regardless of whether they were good ones, just on the basis of him later becoming infamous? Change his correct edit of "9mm" back to the incorrect ".9mm"? Or are you hoping for a discussion about active accounts linked to living infamous people? Because you haven't said anything about that. I for one am finding it frustrating to try and read your mind here. So stop being coy and either say what you're thinking and what you want to happen in concrete and specific terms or drop the subject, because you're not doing a lot to guide the discussion even though you seem to want it to go somewhere. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The WP:OUTING risk here is less that we would correclty identify him than that we could incorrectly identify a user as having been Lanza. Better to leave it alone and not engage in original research. That's my nice way of saying that if I see anyone engaging in such speculation all that will result is that their edits will go down the rabbit hole in they will be indef blocked. Fair warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok based on my readings of this thread, it seems like, in terms of Lanza, there's not much to be done until his ID is revealed in a reliable secondary source, and really only then if it becomes a public issue that impacts the reputation of Wikipedia it could be brought up by way of office action and/or Wales. Otherwise normal rules apply. Thanks for everyone who contributed constructively and civilly your knowledge on these issues. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The source cited above is pretty unambiguous.  It says:
 * A revision involving the Sept. 13, 2006, shooting at Dawson College in Montreal, in which one student was killed and 19 others wounded, is quite particular about how the article posted on Wikipedia describes the firearm used by the killer.
 * " '9mm' was listed as '.9mm.' People say that 9mm is anemic, but this is ridiculous," the poster believed to be Lanza says in explaining his revision.
 * This posting can in fact be found.
 * Nonetheless, there is nothing that should be done about it. Wikipedia keeps open records.  There are plenty of cities -- unfortunately -- which have invested in public surveillance systems, and if any of them were as open with the records as Wikipedia is, then you could look up the footage and say OMG some spree murderer walked past my house in 2006! but it wouldn't matter.  Of course, if someone wants to look them over and check for inaccuracies to fix, they can [I think we ought to give a pass on WP:Wikistalking here], but their work is probably better spent in routine patrolling. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way - for some reason I don't understand, User:Beeblebrox revdeled a note I placed on the user's talk page warning him about the article and this discussion. I had merely repeated the information above, so that if it turns out he really isn't Lanza and logs in someday he'll know he has a very peculiar and unpleasant issue to deal with in the mainstream press.  I don't see what's the matter with warning an innocent person in this fashion; and of course if he is Lanza then he won't be reading the message. Wnt (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Let's nip this in the bud right now so we don't have to revisit this in the future with every new newspaper article. 1) What do you, Green Cardamom, think should be done assuming that the account has been identified that the now-dead Lanza used more than three years ago, and 2) how do you think that could impact the reputation of Wikipedia? You obviously have some idea or else you wouldn't think it was a concern that needed to be raised, so again, don't force us to try and guess what you're thinking here. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I should follow up by noting that I found another discussion at by looking at where User:Beeblebrox went after revdeling my edit, and apparently he regarded something similar there as a WP:OUTING issue.  Nonetheless, I think we should think carefully about what that policy means!  Is it outing:
 * To warn a user of a possibly erroneous news report linking his account to a nefarious killer in the press on his talk page? (which was redacted)
 * To post a link to a diff cited in multiple news reports? (which I did above, and he left alone so far)
 * To post a link to the news story that cites that diff (as the OP did here)
 * For Wikipedia to retain the account postings (left alone so far)
 * I think when you're holding a hammer everything looks like a nail, and some people too accustomed to their Delete buttons might think the answer here is to delete things, but I don't think it's a solution. There isn't anywhere to stop.  Any fraction of either of these discussions is more than sufficient to pull out the data - merely knowing somebody thinks Lanza was spotted on Wikipedia inevitably starts a line of research that leads to his alleged account, according to the press.  Outing on Wikipedia is a bad thing, yes, but when the actual press is covering something, it's not outing any more.  (There are other issues in that policy about "opposition research" to undermine Wikipedia opponents with ad hominem arguments, but they clearly don't apply to a deceased and inactive editor)  And surely one of the worst ways to handle it is to allow a wide discussion of the editor's role on multiple policy and news pages, but not notification of the User that he is the topic of discussion.  The solution we should adopt in this case is simply to leave everything as it is, and let Wikipedia proudly live and die by the policy of openness it chose at the start. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I should followup that now New York Magazine is the third source I know of to cite this, this one giving the username directly:  I think the three are good enough sourcing for it to be in the main article, actually.  It also looks like some of the Wikipediocracy-linked sources have been putting out their own sort of blurbs about it  and a blacklisted Examiner article which I won't try to get away with citing just now.  Bottom line: by now more has been written about this account than the 12 lousy diffs are worth.  If the username is actually a reference to Biblical Cain it is an interesting state-of-mind reference point for sociologists, though. Wnt (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly agree with you that far more is being made of this than it warrants. It possibly speaks somewhat to his state of mind, if it was even him, that he was apparently studying other spree killers three years before his own crimes, but it says nothing about Wikipedia. How they can call twelve edits an "obsession" with editing such articles is beyond me. However, it does seem like the cat is now out of the bag, but we still have no actual hard evidence that this was Adam Lanza, and its unlikely we ever will. This is another area where the press has got it wrong. They insinuate Wikipedia 'won't tell them if it was or not for "privacy reasons" when the real is answer is of course that we simply don't have any way of knowing who anyone is unless they decide to tell us, and if that was Adam Lanza it is far too late for him to tell us anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we agree the cat is out of the bag, then could you un-revdel my note, and give your assurance that it's OK for us to talk about the username directly at these discussions? (Posting about it in the Signpost or citing it at the Lanza article might be another matter because they have higher standards, but at least they should be assured that it is within their normal editorial decision-making) Wnt (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of conflict between WP:MEAT/WP:COI and WP:OUTING
If you find a bunch of new editors editing an article and then you find that one of the longer term editors is using a website with a strong POV to invite these new editors to join Wikipedia, what should be done about this? Would bringing it up on Wikipedia be WP:OUTING / harassment? Or can we bring it up as it is meatpupperty / an obvious COI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Linking to a website that outs an editor is outing the editor. Therefore, that cannot be done. If it's a garage-band kind of article, I'm not sure what can be done. If it's something with greater significance, the problem could be described at a noticeboard (perhaps WP:COIN), with a general statement that there is an influx of new editors, and Google searching suggests that recruitment may be occurring. That is, a hint which does not connect the dots is ok, but anything more is not. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This sort of compulsory disingenuousness is a good argument as to why WP:OUTING is in need of serious modification. I know it's not easy &mdash; somehow it has to be done without breaking promises on which editors have already relied, and we need to protect editors whose governments are less protective of speech than Florida and the United States are.  But the way it's implemented currently is just bizarre. --Trovatore (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave a message on ANI along the lines of: "Given this  website, I am concerned about the potential for meat-puppetry and POV abuse at relevant article name." Our admins can figure out what is going on without you actually accusing (or "outing") any specific editor. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if the user creates an article on their band, linking to the band's webpage (even if it contains the members' real names) would not be considered outing, as long as it is relevant and not done with malicious intent. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the case KoH just described, wouldn't the user be "outing" himself?... that's perfectly fine. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clarify: I mean that another user links to the band's webpage. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Singles vs. Songs
While trawling throguh some of my favourite MJ songs, I came across this old debate on the Scream/Childhood talk page. I had always thoguht it seemed rather disjointed and bizarre, so decided to investigate further. The following is probably the most intelligent analysis in the discussion, and one which I wholeheartedly agree with. If followed, this would affect Wikipedia's policies with how it approaches songs and singles: --Coin945 (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:HOTCAT on as a default
In this discussion last year a very small group of users discussed turning HotCat on by default and the discussion was closed with a decision to do so for all registered users. In the intervening months some problems have occurred as result of this, mainly the accidental creation of categories by users who see the + at the bottom of the page and assume, as is the case on many other websites, that it is a way to add a comment of their own. This results in their message not getting across and an admin needing to delete the useless category the unsuspecting newbie created. They don't even know they were using a gadget/tool/whatever. Therefore it is proposed that this decision be reversed. 22:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support As proposer. This decision was made with the support of only four users. It never should have been closed the way it was, and I am flabbergasted that it was actually done. Time to reverse this well-intended but naive error. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I too have seen newbies mistake it for an "add comment" feature. I am not aware of any IP editors using hotcat, and a logged-in user who really wants it can enable the gadget for themselves. Chris857 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per Beebs. — Ched : ?  22:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I've seen the same attempts at 'communication by category'. This should never have been done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support per above. --Rschen7754 22:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well whaddya know, we've already got more support for undoing it than there was for doing it in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support get rid of this horrendous idea. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support Too many new editors creating 2-sentence long categories thinking this button was the "add comment" - an absolute mess. Not sure who in their right mind thought it was a good thing (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 23:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Not a good default for new users, who have enough to think about. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  23:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Do I need to repeat all of the wisdom expressed in the comments above?  Clearly a well intended action that did not consider the negative consequences.  Are we ready for WP:SNOW? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - ease of use for new editors, and especially for their attempts to communicate with other editors, should be the number one priority. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support We're confusing new users and making it harder for them to participate, while making more work for established users.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, neither a self-obvious tool appropriate for inexperienced users nor necessary to edit; having to learn what it is and how to get it turned on is a reasonable way to filter out those who don't have a clue as to how it works. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per all above. Widr (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Addendum In turning HotCat off by default, HotCat appears to have been turned off for everybody, including people like me who had it enabled in the Gadgets tab. I've advised one person at the helpdesk to just manually re-enable it, but we might want to post a central notice about the phenomenon.   Acroterion   (talk)   13:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to see a proof that this was indeed a serious problem. The nom didn't even mention a single thread in which this was discussed, he just made an assertion that there is a widespread problem. For all we know, this might have been a very rare occurrence; and one that could be solved by adding a warning message to people using it for a first time or such. PS. Anyway, with all due respect, you are all missing the point. Turning on was supposed to make it easier and more friendly to add categories, both for new and old editors. Before we turn this off we should look at the stats for category creation and maintenance; I offer a counter-argument (backed up by as much data as the nom in this thread offered for his position) - that new editors were helped much more by this tool than confused. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The thread that motivated this was WP:AN. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Several of the supporting posts indicated that they had seen the issue arise - I certainly did. As for adding 'warning messages', that is the last thing we need to be doing with new users. The user interface is too complex as it is. And as for looking at stats, I have to wonder how many users have encountered this confusing interface and given up trying to edit at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's obviously fooling new editors into thinking that it's a way to add content, which is a failure of the interface. I'd not oppose an easier-to-understand version, but it's been a continuous problem for months and it's resulted in many new editors getting bitten for adding categories to user pages on which they're trying to communicate, creating categories containing the text of an article and general trouble. There's nothing wrong with HotCat per se, but there is a failure of the UI design. Wikipedia is hard enough for new editors to use without adding a feature that leads them down a blind alley.   Acroterion   (talk)   19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See this and this  for concerns expressed earlier.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted a link to this thread for the editor whose block was discussed in that second archived discussion, with an apology. We should be happy that we didn't lose a contributor because of the block; he still contributes occasionally. The interface can be daunting for infrequent editors; my husband, who contributes intermittently, still needs assistance when performing editing functions which are more complex than text insertion or simple formatting. Without my assistance and encouragement, he would have taken one look at the editing interface and decided not to try.  Horologium  (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I had seen this more than once, as had others, but because we did not realize HotCat was now on by default (somehow the four users who made that decision did not do a good job making sure everyone else knew they did it) we did not put it together until yesterday. I did not take notes on every time I saw a weird category being created in the last 8 months and I doubt anyone else did either. This isn't about not liking HotCat, I personally find it to be a very useful tool, but these users didn't even know they were using it and had no idea what it was. And then they got lectured because we all thought they turned on HotCat and then used it in this clueless way. That's not a good thing. I'm sure this was done in good faith, but there was not enough participation in the intial discussion, which as far as I can tell was not advertised as an RFC or listed at CENT as should be done for any sort of site-wide change, and it had unintended consequences. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, this explains a new user question/issue I had a few months ago. His comments clearly showed that hotcat was turned on and the user had no idea what it was and what it did.  All he knew was he had buttons that allowed the creation of any category link he wanted.  I don't recall the details, but this was the guts of the discussion.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another example: A newcomer tried to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quiddity&diff=560774254&oldid=560583792 leave me a message] on my talkpage, using Hotcat, 10 days ago. –Quiddity (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks for disabling one of my gadgets. Might have been smart to make a visit to VP/T, then we could have discussed about a way to make the default only apply to non-IP users. It would have been quite easy to do, and not EVERYONE would have had to re enable the gadget manually. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, thanks for the warning that this was going... GiantSnowman 14:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are newbies making mistakes and even adding red linked categories a problem? Or is that merely an opportunity to explain to people how a tool works? I'm one of the people who had made thousands of Hotcat edits, thought it was great that Hostcat was switched on by default, and then got opted out of it when it was switched off. Did the people who supported taking this tool away realise they would be removing it from people who opted into it and used it for years? Did they realise that some of the people who'd lose it had been trained in Hotcat and been talked through setting it, those people may not be able to work out that they can get it back by setting their user preferences.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Are newbies making mistakes and even adding red linked categories a problem?" Yes, when it leads (as has repeatedly been the case) to complete failures of communication, and to said newbies being blocked due to nobody realising what the problem was. We may very well have lost a significant number of potential contributors through adding an inappropriate, unexplained, and misleading 'gadget' to the interface in a position where it is entirely rational to expect an 'add comment' button or similar. If we are to attract new contributors, we need to ensure that they understand the basics of communication before worrying about ease of access to category tools etc. I'd have though this was obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When will the HotCats be turned back on? This is incredibly annoying!--Sanya3 (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposing IPs be unable to AfD articles
IP editors (no Wikipedia account) are generally new, lack a proven track record, often do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures, lack experience. While it is good to allow them to edit articles, giving them the power to AfD an article seems unwise. AfDs can use up considerable community time and attention. It is a power. It can be abused. My proposal is: only established users with an account and track record (perhaps a month of editing) should be able to AfD an article. I had thought IP editors can not AfD an article, but I found that Urban coyote was just AfDed a few days ago by an IP. The IP did not sign their name on the talk page; there is no "articles for deletion" page created yet. Just a mess.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * IP's can only create pages in talk namespaces so they cannot create the AfD page, but there is nothing preventing them from adding an AfD template to an article. WP:AFDHOWTO currently has a procedure for IP's. You should post a notification to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. There may be discussions in the archives but I don't know. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea about the WP Articles for deletion page. Thanks. ✅--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've completed the AfD creation process for Urban coyote on behalf of the IP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the more general question, as long as Wikipedia permits anonymous editing by IPs, I think that preventing an IP from nominating an article for deletion would be inconsistent with other permissions. And while it is true that many IPs lack experience, others may have been editing for years, and undeserving of restrictions. I would suggest that if restrictions regarding AfDs are to be proposed, it needs to be done in the context of a broader debate on the merits of IP editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent, you said? As far as I remember, IPs can’t create articles. What is wrong with disallowing them to start AfDs, the opposite operation? This permission offers not lesser possibilities for trolling. I even think that IPs’ possibility to redirect an article is too permissive, because a redirected article (unlike a blanked one, that appears at Special:ShortPages) can remain undetected. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You should choose a page for the discussion and link to it from the other. Starting a separate discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is certainly not what I had in mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that. I added a note to the AfD talk page linking here. No sense in having the discussion in more than one place, this one is older, so I directed it here with a simple note. Jguy TalkDone 15:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't ever seen such a high volume of AFDs from IP editors to make it a problem we need to legislate away rather than deal with them one at a time. postdlf (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be a huge problem, if a few IPs figure that they can disrupt Wikipedia with seemingly legitimate but time-consuming AfD nominations. Wikipedia could be thought of as an open system easily attacked by a virus.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like this part: ' My proposal is: only established users with an account and track record (perhaps a month of editing) should be able to AfD an article. ' of your original post. What are we going to say about Mr. New Guy who AfD's an article that clearly meets the criteria for deletion (e.g. fails WP:V, N, BIO, GNG, etc.)? "Sorry, you do not have enough edits/time at Wikipedia. Speedy keep this article because the editor nominator is new."? Anyone with an account should be able to XfD. If you wanted to restrict it to "more experienced" editors, then perhaps only autoconfirmed users (10 edits and/or 4 days) could XfD. A month just seems too long and seems POINTy. Jguy TalkDone 13:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, don't really see this being a significant enough problem that we need a specific rule against it. If the AFDs are good, they get discussed and deleted (or not) just like any other nomination.  If the AFDs are hopelessly unlikely to pass they can be removed as disruption or simply WP:SNOW closed.  If we had scores of IPs starting pointless AFDs to the point that is was disruptive to have to clean them up, I'd agree, but we don't, and that's never been a significant problem in my memory. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The 10 edits or 4 days could be a suitable alternative for a month waiting period.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Question. Is this the official site for this discussion? Or the Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion page?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am assuming this is the place. I'm coping comments from the WPtalk:Articles for Deletion page here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

IP editors -- no Wikipedia account -- are generally new, lack a proven track record, often do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures, lack experience. While it is good to allow them to edit articles, giving them the power to AfD an article seems unwise. AfDs eat up considerable community time and attention. They often result in much battling. Being able to AfD an article is a real power. It can be abused. I propose that only established users (account; track record of perhaps one month of edits) be able to AfD an article. I had thought IP editors can not AfD an article, but I found that Urban coyote was just AfDed a few days ago by an IP. The IP did not even sign their name on the talk page. The problem is compounded when IPs can not create the deletion discussion page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF covers a lot of ground here. If the IP provides a rationale, as this one did, then we generally complete the AFD steps on their behalf, as a pro forma gesture of good faith. If the nomination is obviously flawed ("This article on a tv show should be deleted because it was a stupid show" or "This article should be deleted because the main editor is an asshole", etc), then I'll remove the AFD tag and advise the user. But I would do the same with an incomplete nomination from a registered editor (and we get those too). Put another way - what would change if this inexperienced editor went and created a login and THEN nominated the page? How would that be different, if they had a valid rationale for deletion? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as Wikipedia permits anonymous editing by IPs, I think that preventing an IP from nominating an article for deletion would be inconsistent with other permissions. And while it is true that many IPs lack experience, others may have been editing for years, and undeserving of restrictions. I would suggest that if restrictions regarding AfDs are to be proposed, it needs to be done in the context of a broader debate on the merits of IP editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally I agree that discussion about IPs being able to make AfD nominations should be in the context of a broader debate on IP editing. Regarding the question by Ultraexactzz, I am thinking that not merely creation of a login account gives a person the power to nominate; rather, there should be some period of waiting, perhaps a month, when the community can get a sense of how responsible the IP is, before the power is granted. My general concern is that there is an imbalance here: it takes only perhaps a minute to nominate an article for deletion, but it can result in a week's worth of bickering, back and forth, actions by third parties such as administrators or reviewers. In short, one inexperienced user can cause a huge amount of fuss for experienced users. It could lead to bigtime abuse. The principle that editing privileges become greater as a user contributes more, and develops a track record, is well established at Wikipedia. Users who learn the guidelines, edit responsibly, and who do so over a period of time, get greater privileges such as rollback rights, possibly become administrators. So I think it is thoroughly consistent with Wikipedia policy to withhold power-privileges (I see AfD nominations as one of these) until users demonstrate a commitment to Wikipedia and some understanding of its guidelines and procedures. An IP, dissatisfied with an article, can tag it with notability, original research, or other problems, and suggest on a talk page that the article should be deleted; but letting an IP nominate an article seems like giving too much power to a neophyte. True, some IPs have edited for a long time, but then why can they simply not take the logical step of getting a free account, and edited under that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion: If an IP or new user creates an AfD, and the AfD receives no "delete" !votes from established users, then any admin can speedily close the AfD. Of course, there is a lot of discretion in determining 1) who is a new user, 2) who is an established user, and 3) even if the first two conditions are met, whether the AfD should be speedily closed or if the nominator actually has a point; which I expect the reviewing admin to exercise. This allows us to deal with the case of IPs or new users creating actually legitimate nominations, by simply choosing to allow them. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I still think this leaves open the possibility for serious abuse, since the fuss over the deletion discussion takes up much time and thinking and checking by community members who probably have better stuff to attend to. In this case of Urban coyote, the gripe was not whether the article should have been deleted, but whether the content of it should be merged into the article Coyote. In my view, this is an instance of the community spending much time and attention on a non-subject, and the possibility exists that an IP or group could cause considerable fuss here at Wikipedia by proposing massive numbers of AfDs with borderline rationales.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm far more bothered by the registered or even experienced editors who waste time at AFD on matters that should have been dealt with by normal editing or nominate an article in complete ignorance of a clearly applicable policy or guideline. I see plenty of those all the time. I see very few IP-originated AFDs, and few within those that are plainly disruptive. I find it unlikely that IPs slapping AFD notices on articles will ever be a prime method of vandalism and disruption compared to other kinds of disruptive editing, nor do I think we are so unable to deal with it if it did become an issue that we need a prophylactic rule, rather than just reverting the AFD notices and not completing the nominations that the IP can't complete anyway because they can't create the AFD discussion page. postdlf (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Concurring with  postdlf, I  think  this is a solution  looking  for a problem. I  frequently  come across established editors disrupting  the AfD process, especially  by  making  mass nominations that  have no  other purpose other than to  pursue a deletionist  agenda -  especially  when they  are well  aware that  the outcome will  be 'keep' or at  least  'redirect'. If  they  want  to  change deletion or notability  guidelines, there are other venues. There are also  trolls and socks who  disrupt  the process. I'm  not  quite sure where the stats are, but  I  seem  to  recall  that  IP  users account  for a significant  number of constructive edits, and many  of them  are highly  knowledgeable. It's their prerogative not  to  enjoy  the advantages of a registered account. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am persuaded by Postdlf and Kudpung and others that a rule banning IPs from making AfD or XfD nominations is not needed. I have had only tangential experience with deletion reviews and did not see the broader picture. Thank you for your thinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Where Is Featured Article Review described?
I hope that this is not considered a stupid question. Where is the policy for the review of articles to be Featured Articles described in detail? I can see various articles on Featured Articles, but none of them describes the procedure itself (the peer review, et cetera). There is a minor problem, which is that the featured article today (Thursday, 4 July 2013), apparently got into Featured Article status without a decision on what regional version of English would be used. In this case, Battle of Quebec (1775), the answer should have been Canadian English, and a template should have been applied to the article talk page to specify Canadian English. Since this wasn't reviewed, a Canadian or British editor correctly corrected the spelling of defense to defence, and an American editor made a good-faith correction. If the review procedures don't address deciding the version of English, they should do so. Where exactly is the procedure for peer review of articles proposed for Featured Article status described? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Featured article criteria and Peer review. That's the best I  can offer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've posted to the peer review talk page to offer the opinion that a necessary step of peer review is identifying the variety of regional English.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyrights
See Template talk:PD-signature and Template talk:PD-ineligible, where we are discussing whether the threshold of originality licensing templates should either match PD-signature in requiring an check of the country of origin to see if it complies to the PD standards of that country or not, or match PD-ineligible in not caring if the country of origin's rules of the threshold of originality (or special copyright protections) is met or not, only using the US standard, and whether the template should be so named to indicate that only the US standard has been checked. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article for July 4th 2013
To choose an American defeat as a featured article for Independence Day is an obvious insult to Americans. I'm very disappointed that Wikipedia has chosen not even a neutral or unrelated article, but an article about American defeat, on a day when we celebrate our nation. The Wikimedia foundation's bias against the US and US citizens has always been obvious, but this slap in the face is simply unnecessary and uncalled for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbraly (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange. TFA do not seem to be really a popular subject, because contentious issues are rather low. Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 4, 2013 has the issued raised on June 23rd, but given national sentiments - I can see why this is a bad pick for moral concerns. If this was July 8, we would not be having this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know... As an American, I find featuring an article about a battle where Americans attempted something utterly astounding and unprecedented (a surprise invasion of Quebec via the Maine wilderness - unheard of!), persevering against great hardship - and almost succeeding! - to be a highly appropriate way to celebrate my nation's birth. It celebrates our ingenuity and daring as a nation, and highlights the fact that Americans will keep going, even through hardship and defeat.  Hardly an insult. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently we are to instead believe the Revolution was easy. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm confused a to how this constitutes a policy discussion. I'm also confused by the claim that WP has an anti-american bias when the complaint we hear most often at Talk:Main Page is the exact opposite. The Revolution was not fought in a day, and yes, at one time Benedict Arnold was considered an American hero for his bravery and bold tactics. History. It's not all George Washington crossing the Delaware and Lincoln freeing the slaves. WP is about recording and disseminating knowledge, all of it, not just knowledge that makes us happy. Besides, we won the war despite not being able to hold Quebec. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I admit it, the Wikimedia Foundation secretly contacted me and asked me to choose the most insulting TFA for 4th July that I could. Wikipedia / the Foundation didn't choose it - I did. I chose it, in the absence of any other suggestions, because choosing TFAs at the moment is principally my responsibility when the community doesn't suggest anything for me to use. I stand by my view (supported by others, I see, for which I am grateful) that this is an appropriate encyclopedic article for today, not least to show that the path to independence was not smooth and candy-coated. If I had chosen something unrelated to the US of A, I would have been criticised for ignoring this important date. If I had chosen something celebrating an American victory in the War of Independence (and there are in fact no such articles that I can use, see below) then I would have been criticised for perpetuating a pro-American bias.  If by 4th July next year any of the articles on the following list are featured articles, they stand a chance of being considered. In the meantime, if anyone would like to help choose the articles that appear on the main page as TFA, then please visit WP:TFAR. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 20:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Independence Day (United States)
 * John Adams
 * American Revolution
 * American Revolutionary War
 * Articles of Confederation
 * John Barry (naval officer)
 * Battle of Bunker Hill
 * Battle of the Chesapeake
 * Battles of Lexington and Concord
 * Battles of Saratoga
 * Boston campaign
 * Boston Tea Party


 * Continental Congress / First Continental Congress / Second Continental Congress / Congress of the Confederation
 * Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms
 * Federalist Papers
 * Founding Fathers of the United States
 * Give me liberty, or give me death!
 * Nathanael Greene
 * History of the United States (1776–89)
 * Benjamin Franklin
 * John Hancock
 * John Hanson


 * Patrick Henry
 * Benjamin Lincoln
 * Israel Putnam
 * Paul Revere
 * Siege of Boston
 * Siege of Yorktown
 * Treaty of Paris (1783)
 * United States Bill of Rights
 * United States Constitution
 * United States Declaration of Independence
 * George Washington
 * Etc, etc, etc.


 * Don't take my words wrongly or harshly; it is just that the duality and the tone expressed on the page can easily mislead a sizable portion of the public; one such issue was raised, but community input on the process is very much lacking. That fact that TFA is not very contentious in nature shows how good a job has been done. I just think that many people cannot read and cannot follow directions; before singling out the words "The battle was the first major defeat of the war for the Americans on July 4th. It is probably about the only thing that stands out to Americans right now. Few will read the actual article and discover this tacit praise propagated by historians. Which is in itself sad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely if Wikipedia had intended the TFA to make America look bad they would have picked something really awful... like My Lai Massacre or COINTELPRO or Japanese internment camps or Honey Boo Boo. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No one will ever accuse Wikipedia of having good taste. The concept itself is foreign to many key editors here. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of the nature of an encyclopedia is covering the tasteless, the tragic, and the horrible. We can't exclude topics we personally dislike.  As another editor once said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the world we live in, not the world we wish we lived in. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Usage of Chinese characters in article titles
There has been a long ongoing discussion at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") regarding the usage of Chinese characters to disambiguate from other surnames also called "Li". The discussion has deteriorated somewhat and needs some fresh eyes. On the back of this, an editor has suggested changes to WP:AT in order to allow this usage. As this affects core Wikipedia policy, wider participation is needed at both discussions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've initiated a proposal to amend WP:UE guideline at WP:AT. -Zanhe (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

G5. Creations by banned or blocked users.
WP:SPEEDY "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates. To qualify, the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned. A page created before the ban does not qualify. To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are in some other topic."

During my seven-year history of writing articles for Wikipedia I have been blocked or banned at various times for my interpretation of the Manual of Style. As a result I resorted to using sockpuppets to make contributions. Now some of the articles written as far back as July 2011 have been singled out and deleted. I'm puzzled as to why these particular ones have been selected when there are well over 1000 to choose from. Personally I don't mind if the whole lot are removed, but what I do mind is the inconsistency in interpretation and application of G5, and in particular the lack of common-sense underlying the rule. I can understand the admins feeling that the perpetrator should be punished - what I don't understand is how Wikipedia benefits by deleting perfectly good articles. To be fair the admins I have chatted to are divided about deleting such contributions. Paul venter (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the imperfections in our ability to detect sockpuppets. We do our best, but it is a difficult problem. If your first twenty or thirty attempts had been quickly discovered and reverted there is a good chance that you would have stopped abusing Wikipedia instead of going on to do it over a thousand times. As for you "minding" inconsistent applications of the rules, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. When you decided to flout our rules you forfeited the right to criticize others for allegedly not following those same rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise for any flaw in WP's sockpuppet detection mechanism as I didn't criticise it. Your use of the word 'abusing' though is interesting and rightly applies to my sockpuppetry, but you imply that somehow that same abuse has contaminated my contributions, and it is exactly that point with which I disagree - an editor's social or anti-social behaviour is not necessarily reflected in his contributions which should be judged on their own merit and not seen as fruit of the poisoned tree. WP is far from perfect and the rules managing its creation should be seen as a work in progress rather than divinely inspired commandments. Issues like this help to spotlight problem areas and with sensible input may hopefully lead to an improved WP. Paul venter (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't mandatory that we delete such articles, but what G5 does is give us the ability to do so when necessary. It's another tool that allows us to remain flexible in dealing with a disruptive Wikipedia user and in quickly stopping disruption, but the existence of such a tool does not mean that we must use it every time.  -- Jayron  32  05:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the user G-Zay was one where good contributions were interspersed with bad and masked into the very articles that he worked hard on. This is a good example of a reason why G5 exists; valid and positive contributions which are easily verified can be vetted and remain, but any questionable or unsourced work can be promptly removed under G5/BLP/etc. reasons. If I go an make an FA article; the FA doesn't go in the trash because it is assumed it is peer reviewed and factually accurate and so forth. Wikipedia's real issue is that some editors create hoaxes and insert false material to get back at Wikipedia or damage its credibility; G5 exists for that purpose where there is doubt, but no other easily applicable reason as to respond. Its the "if in doubt throw it out" clause. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are free to disagree with the Wikipedia policy that says that your abuse has contaminated your contributions, but that is our policy and this is unlikely to change any time soon. The community has decideded with an overwhelming consensus that material added to Wikipedia by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be (but are not required to be) removed by any editor. Of course consensus can change, and it might very well be that your agruments are compelling enough to cause a new consensus to form that this policy should be changed, but until that happens, our current policy is that your abuse has indeed contaminated your contributions.


 * Removing the incentive for abuse is in itself a desirable goal. Consider the widely held "we don't negotiate with hostage takers" policy. The logic is that, while negotiating is likely to benefit those particular hostages, it also sends a message that taking hostages works and thus leads to many more cases of taking hostages. Now of course I do not want to imply that there is any sort of equivalence between sock puppetry and hostage taking, but my first draft of this comment, where I used the analogy of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum, was even more offensive. The point is that if you reward a particular behavior you get more of it. Clearly you did not evade your block just because you wanted typing practice. The fact that those contributions actually modified the articles instead of being instantly reverted was your reward. Denying you that reward in order to discourage your behavior is a legitimate goal, irrespective of the actual content of your edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The fundamental flaw in the policy you outline above is that it assumes something sinister akin to terrorism in sockpuppets. What does it matter if an editor chooses to contribute under a score of different names so long as a contribution adds to the value of Wikipedia. On the other hand if false information is included in an article, deliberately or inadvertently, it will inevitably be corrected. To assume bad faith and blindly throw out contributions without having examined their merit is just plain silly, and flies in the face of the constant reminder that the most important consideration when weighing an issue is whether it improves Wikipedia. Paul venter (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * if false information is included in an article, deliberately or inadvertently, it will inevitably be corrected. This is where your argument breaks down, as that's far from inevitable, particularly if cleverly done, and there are some very clever people out there. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire point that everyone is missing is that we're allowed to delete such articles, but we are still not forced to delete such articles. Discretion is allowed, and many factors including the quality of the article, later good-faith contributions by other editors, and the specific nature of the block and/or ban in relation to the article itself can all be considered.  At no point do we automatically purge Wikipedia of every contribution of every blocked or banned editor; but we have the option of doing so if it is necessary.  Every case must be judged of its own specifics, and no general statement about if or when G5 would or would not be invoked can me made except in relation to an actual specific article and an actual specific banned user.  -- Jayron  32  02:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Giving admins discretionary powers to delete or not delete articles in this type of situation is vague and leads to the chaos that may be seen here, where it is obvious that deletions can become very arbitrary. This is not a good basis for consistent and sound policy. Paul venter (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So...admins should have compulsory deletion power? Or should we just have bots delete everything by identified ban/block evaders? postdlf (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. Yes we realize that Paul Venter thinks that giving admins discretionary powers over deleting the contribution of sockpuppets is a Very Bad Thing. Nonetheless, the Wikipedia community has determined by an overwhelming consensus that requiring admins to either always delete them or always leave them in is a Far Worse Thing. You know Paul, you can avoid this issue entirely by not engaging in sockpuppetry. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Was gonna stay out of this, but re "you can avoid this issue entirely by not engaging in sockpuppetry," I have to say: Or at least go for a clean start and avoid doing the stuff that resulted in a ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still hoping to arrive at a better wording of G5 without grandstanding or unsubstantiated remarks such as "overwhelming consensus". This is not the time for cheap shots, but rather to gather input from a larger number of editors who are willing to look critically at the thinking behind this non-rule. Paul venter (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Giving admins a discretionary power to delete material contributed by sockpuppets appears to me to be a better option than any other solution so far offered in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, so far I haven't seen any constructive proposal put forward. Perhaps because nobody sees it as a problem.....Paul venter (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind making G5 much stronger in order to resolve the inconsistency, indicating that except in the unusual circumstance that the article has been substantially edited by multiple other editors, the content must be deleted. Sockpuppetry is such a deceitful activity that most steps to minimize its rewards are justified.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly is it that makes sockpuppetry so wicked? Paul venter (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The practice of deceit and the breach of the principle of good faith. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that adopting the moral high ground is supported by "As so often, Yogesh, I really don't give a crap what you think. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)" Paul venter (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also called stuff "bollocks" and told someone to "fuck off" recently. I didn't claim above to have the moral high ground. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the articles that result from the sockpuppetry are in themselves constructive and improve WP, then so what?Paul venter (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not the question that you asked, nor the one that I answered. You are proposing a Robin Hood defence but when push comes to shove this is all about discretion. I've seen articles created by socks that have been retained and I've seen ones that have been deleted. If it were me, I'd probably delete the lot on the basis that socks should not be encouraged and if the subject matter is notable then someone will recreate it in due course. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of G5 is that it gives teeth to banning, the only sanction the community has against users who show they are unwilling to abide by its rules. If a banned user can simply go on editing by creating more sockpuppets, and forcing endless arguments about which of their edits are "constructive", the ban is useless. This has been frequently debated, but there has never been consensus to change the policy stated in WP:BAN. Enforcing G5 motivates the banned user to take the more constructive option: repent of their previous sins, request unblock, and agree to and comply with any conditions imposed. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would personally routinely delete articles created by a banned or blocked user, unless there was an exceptionally good reason not to. Otherwise banning users has no value. A merely "constructive" edit will, if it benefits the project, will sooner or later be made legitimately by a genuine editor. As to the thousand or so edits listed above as being created by Paul venter sockpuppets, and their survival in the encyclopedia, this simply means that their origin was not spotted, or that they were felt at the time to be worth retaining. They still should not be here, although it may be seen as unduly narrow-minded to delete them now in view of the time they have existed. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems unduly narrow-minded to me to delete them on grounds of their origin in any case, however old or new they are. If they are bad articles, then the fact of their being created by a sockpuppet merely provides an excuse to delete them without going through a process. If not, then anyone who deletes them is wilfully harming Wikipedia (and should perhaps be threatened with blocking themselves). If you think this means banning users has no value, then so be it (I disagree); but if it is to lead to well-meaning people deleting good material, then it comes to have a negative value, which is even worse. Victor Yus (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My fundamental position has been the following:
 * The purpose of WP is to create a free encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. The environment is not the end in itself, but the method we have chosen to create the content of the encyclopedia. The criteria for acceptable content do not change depending who who write is. Nobody has special authority to contribute, and the only reason for preventing someone to contribute is if their contributes are disruptive. If a normally disruptive editor creates good content, they are to that extent not being disruptive.  There can be exceptions--a contributor most of whose content is disruptive may cause so many problems that the only practical solution is to refuse all the content--for example, a serial copyright violator who we can not persuade to stop--it is reasonable to presume that further contributions will be similarly copyvio. But if someone is prepared to demonstrate that a particular contribution from even that person is not copyvio, and otherwise acceptable, we will have a better encyclopedia if it is included rather than excluded.
 * But some people are manned for other reasons: for example, they disrupt the overall editing process by making threats, or using sockpuppets to influence decisions. If they are however not currently doing things which pose such a risk, there is no reason for them to remain banned, except the fear that accepting the work will encourage them to resume their formal behavior. In extreme cases, I can understand that we might not be willing to take the chance, but I am not convinced that this applies to every blocked user. We have too few good content contributors that we can afford to turn them away on the hypothesis that someone else will write the article.


 * But I could equally make the opposite argument.
 * The purpose of WP is to create a free encyclopedia in a collaborative environment.There are many ways of creating an encyclopedia, even a free encyclopedia, and the current method here is not the only one. This is more exactly a project in open intellectual process, a project to see how far a collaborative environment operating under open content principles controlled entirely by the community in accordance with its own self-generated rules can produce really important useful work while still maintaining the environment. No group has ever done as broad a project in terms of scope and general public importance as we have done with our current methods. We are really a project in experimental social organization--organization not for its own sake, but to actually do something. The encyclopedia is a focus for our work, but the mere product should not take precedence over the entire social group.
 * It is evident that not everyone can work successfully in this environment. We are a voluntary group, not an all-encompasing compulsory structure of society, and therefore do not have the problem of having to accommodate everybody, in the sense that a political entity has. There are many opportunities for those who want to do this sort of intellectual work to do it elsewhere. We are an opportunity for those who want to experiment with working in this particular manner. We therefore have an obligation to our voluntary participants to permit them to work in the way they have chosen; that people who want to pursue this experiment. as far as it will take us be free from disruption. We therefore must judge by whether a particular individual is of net benefit not just to the actual encyclopedia, but the entire process here.


 * These two views must be reconciled. Most of us in practice have a combination of those two motives. We are after all talking not in most cases about global banning, but about the particular project of the English language Wikipedia, and we have always acknowledged that many people who cannot work successfully here, may be able to work successfully in other affiliated projects--tho this is not always the case, which is why we do have the possibility of global blocks. For myself, I am in fact interested in both aspects--I have always wanted to participate in a large scale encyclopedic project, and I am here to realize a childhood dream. But I am also here to realize the childhood dream of being able to do something useful free from outside controls. I never thought to be actually able to do either, and here  I am doing both. I am also aware that if I were a little more eccentric, I would not be able to do this--that there are controls in the sense that only people with a willingness to follow informal but still substantial expectations can participate, because otherwise the disruption they cause would result in too many other good contributors leaving.


 * Here's a series of hypotheticals. Suppose I know personally someone who has been indefinitely blocked here. Suppose that person tells me about an error, and suppose I can verify the error. Should I make the edit (knowing of course it will be me who is responsible if I misjudge the factual situation)  Now, suppose they tell be that something where we are lacking an article would make a good topic, could I write it? Suppose they give me the material to do so, material I myself can verify? Suppose they actually write the article up in WP format, & I can verify both the references and the suitability, and they are explicit in giving me the work to present in my own name?


 * Here's another series: Suppose a banned editor writes something up and  submits it at AfC, and although it is determined it is from a banned editor. can I as a reviewer verify it, revise it, and accept it? Suppose they write it on their talk p., not being blocked from posting there. Can I similarly use it, if I am willing to take responsibility for the contents?    Suppose just the same, except they  contribute it under some other pseudonym in mainspace?If I delete it and then resubmit it exactly in my own name, is it copyvio? Would it be copyvio if I attributed it to the now-deleted name used?  If I delete it, and use the deleted article which I have saved to write a parallel one, am I plagiarizing? Should I find some way to attribute it?  What if I do not save it, but rewrite it exactly or approximately from memory? or use the general concept?    DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Using contributed text without attribution is a wmf:Terms of Use violation. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * These are all plausible cases, but the crunch is that there are times, fortunately rare, when it is necessary for the good of the community as a whole to say to a problematic user that he must conform to our rules and standards or he cannot continue to edit here. If such a user believes that, for all the plausible reasons you give, we are not in practice prepared to enforce the current policy on edits by banned users, he can happily reply "Don't care! I feel no need to comply with your rules, and you can't make me, because I shall ignore any ban and continue editing as much as I like by setting up new accounts." It would be better for all concerned if such a user took the threat of a ban seriously. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @JohnCD: That is exactly why the WP:BAN policy is not taken seriously and should probably be partially, if not completely, abolished. By extension, I would say the same with the WP:BLOCK policy. Who are we to say who is allowed to edit here when we have no way whatsoever to physically prevent them from doing so? If we are going to let an already-banned user's edits in unconditionally, then we might as well let that editor back into the community unconditionally, as well. Unfortunately, much of the community (plus myself, which I find myself guilty of the same thing) like to hypocritically "pretend" that users are "banned" when in actuality they are not. --MuZemike 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For me it's an easy decision: content trumps the identity of the editor.
 * For the G5 nominations I've run across, I estimate I decline about 1/3, delete about 1/3, and let someone else decide the remaining 1/3. Deleting perfectly good content simply because the author is blocked is a stupid idea, and a small number of my G5 declines have been for that reason (the rest didn't qualify for G5 anyway).
 * It's been said before above, and I'll say it again: Just because an article qualifies for G5 doesn't mean it must be deleted. Our job as administrators is to prevent disruption, not punish the the entire project by depriving it of good content. I know my views on this don't agree with most other admins. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, it's an easy decision in the opposite direction: with 4,000,000 articles in the the encyclopedia, it's impossible for any one G5 to damage the encyclopedia by more than .000025%, more or less, and I think the value of discouraging block evasion is much higher than that kind of trivial loss.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP shooting itself in the foot can hardly be counted as a success story..... With such exalted intellects about there has to be a better solution while satisfying those with a puritanical sense of crime and punishment. Paul venter (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. But Kww is one of the leaders in this shooting in the foot idea; perceived crimes must be punished at whatever cost. Eric   Corbett  15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In your haste to set up your straw man and get in your cheap shots, the two of you failed to address Kww's actual point, which is that there is value in discouraging block evasion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's not about punishment, it's about sending a message that the community has decided that even if you are capable of making good contributions sometimes you are too much of a pain in the ass at other times and so all your contributions, good or bad, are no longer welcome. Forgive my bluntness, but it is only a petty and childish mind that would engage in socking to prove how good they can be. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about shooting oneself in the foot, Paul. Socking is a form of lying and cheating to get one's way. The project is not well served by being associated with liars and cheats. It's a matter of short-term loss vs. long-term gain. What the project really needs to do is drop this cloak of privacy nonsense that makes socking so easy to accomplish and take a far more aggressive approach against those that do it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive my bluntness - but utter balderdash. When WP's Mrs Grundys start showing an unhealthy interest in the moral virtues or faults of its contributors, then it is on a very slippery slope. Paul venter (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That you consider not lying and not cheating to be an excessive restraint speaks volumes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I wrote was that the Mrs Grundys of WP are a liability - and yes, as long as the quality of an article is good, I couldn't care whether the contributor is gay, a paedophile, has nasty toilet habits or is a supporter of the Taliban - and neither should you. Paul venter (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care about any of those things. I do care about whether someone is lying to me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember lying to you (if that's what you mean), but at the same you must remember that you are living morally untroubled in a nation that lied to the American Indian and cheated him out of his heritage. Do you feel morally ambivalent? Paul venter (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. If you just want to argue for argument's sake, take it elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite right. This was meant to be a constructive discussion, but instead has turned into a personal sniping opportunity. Paul venter (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * G5 must retain its teeth but it also should not be made into an automatic deletion. Discretion is an important element of content management. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * G5 should remain in full effect. I realize that I am a WP:DELETIONIST, but if we decide to keep some articles that banned or blocked users create in violation of their ban or block, banned or blocked users will start violating their bans and blocks thinking that we'll let it go, and we can't let that happen. smileguy91talk 14:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. If you reward someone for their behavior, you see more and more of the behavior you are rewarding until you finally have to crack down anyway. I also think that "not mandatory" is a good policy, because it is usually OK to ignore the problem when the edits are constructive and to instead concentrate on persistent sockpuppeteers. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would add that this is not at all hypothetical. I'm not going to name names but this has actually happened on more than on occasion with more than one banned user. It did not end well for anyone involved and took up even more of the community's time, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect of a ban. Banning doesn't just happen out of the blue. It is actually not all that easy to enact a ban on a long-term user, which is as it should be. But once we do ban someone, that is it. They are not welcome under any identity regardless of what contributions they intend to make. They can appeal the ban instead childishly evading it and going "look at me, I can be a good boy." Just because that worked on your mother or your schoolteacher doesn't mean we have to put up with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that the intent of G5 is to keep banned or blocked users from making more incessant contributions in violation of what earned them that ban or block in the first place. That being said, we decide admins by consensus, and it is highly doubtful that an admin would delete what appears to be an excellent contribution to the encyclopedia just because "oh, but that awesome new article was written by someone who was blocked at the time, so I have to delete it".  Though I am not an admin, I do know that admins use discretion because they have to.  It's part of having the mop, as they say, and I'm sure there's no admin out there who feels obliged to delete an excellent contribution just because of G5.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 17:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Red Phoenix, but I'd really hope the admin is familiar with the reason the user was banned, and is confident the contribution is unrelated to the reason for the ban. If the ban had anything to do with introducing misleading content, the admin had better be a top-notch subject matter expert, otherwise, delete it. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems to speak to the spirit of G5. Primergrey (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

More Comments on the G5 Debate
This situation is bizarre. We have an editor who thinks that Ignore All Rules really means Ignore All Policies and Guidelines. We have an editor who thinks that the Manual of Style is for other people, and that the blocking policy is for other people, and that the rule against sockpuppetry is for other people, and this editor has the audacity to suggest that G5 is an unreasonable rule, especially if it gives administrators discretion. Maybe that is because he has made a "career" of pushing the limits of administrative discretion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks for lowering the bar even further in this dialogue. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as there is no sign-in-to-edit procedure, there will always be people sneaking back in and socking. Always. The key question is whether they do it productively or whether they do it abusively. Everything should be case-by-case. Believe it or not, not every blocked or banned editor should have been. The lynch mob on any given day at AN/I is not all wise and infallible. The path back to good graces is difficult for some and impossible for many. We're here to build an encyclopedia, productive contributions should be welcomed, not deleted without analysis or thought on the basis of WP:NEENERNEENERWECAUGHTYOU!. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia subject to gags by British courts?
I have come across two cases in recent days where Wikipedia articles have been censored/deleted due to gagging orders issued by UK law courts.

The case I am mostly familiar with is the Bishop Bell School case. In September 2012, a major manhunt was launched looking for a teacher and his 15 year-old pupil who had eloped to France. The girl's name was widely reported by the British media:. After the teacher was charged with having sex with a minor, UK based publications were gagged by British courts from carrying her name. As a result of this judgment an editor removed references to her name from the article:. The trial has concluded with the teacher's conviction. Media outlets around the world (bar the UK ones) are carrying the pupil's name:. This case has been discussed at Talk:Bishop Bell School and Talk:Bishop Bell School.

Another incident that has come to my attention is the Peter Tobin article where a British police officer compelled a Wikipedia administrator to delete an article, if I am interpreting the discussion correctly: Talk:Peter Tobin.

Now, their may be good policy/guideline based reasons for removing this material i.e. if it is libellous for example, but can I have a review of the legal situation please in regards to British court orders? In a nutshell, is Wikipedia subject to them? It strikes me we wouldn't censor Wikipedia to comply with a Chinese or Iranian court so why do British courts get to decide what we can and cannot add to Wikipedia?

There is an RFC to address inclusion of the material in regards to the Bishop Bell school case, but I would like to determine just how relevant British court orders are to the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * IMHO these matters should be referred to the WMF's legal experts. Individual editors and admins should not get involved. The only courts that do have real jurisdiction over Wikipedia are the courts that have jurisdiction in the state of Florida in the US. The only relevant consideration in the abovementioned matters are the BLP rules and particularly the privacy and protection of minors parts of BLP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The only courts that do have real jurisdiction over Wikipedia are the courts that have jurisdiction in the state of Florida in the US." Is that why there's so much reversion-deleting related to the Church of Scientology---we're afraid they'll see the vandalism and sue us penniless? I noticed this months ago, when I was still editing as an IP, and it's been bugging me ever since. Obviously, we shouldn't kowtow to anyone, but if they have aces up their sleeves.... Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The WMF may or may not be subject to British court orders (as Roger says that is a question for its lawyers) but anyone editing from the UK most certainly is. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia is viewable in Britain then the prosecuting authorities may decide to take action against anyone they consider has broken the law. That applies in any country. And if any person in that situation is in Britain or is extradited there then they may be arrested, etc. WMF need to take a balanced view on all such potential issues. It is no good believing that only the US courts have jurisdiction and ignoring everywhere else. Thincat (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't permit Wikipedia to be under the jurisdiction of every court in the world. I encourage the WMF to hold the line:  Florida and the US federal govt, and that's it, period, end of discussion.  We do need to keep editors apprised of any personal risks they might be taking, that is true. --Trovatore (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't expect we need to apprise the members of the WMF Board of Trustees because I'm sure they will be taking their own legal advice. I should be clear: I am expressing no view about what should or should not be excluded from Wikipedia on legal grounds. I am simply saying that it is prudent to be looking beyond the boundaries of the US. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It also needs to be pointed out that publishing this kind of information can, in serious cases, be enough to derail a case, as public opinion can be influenced by media (incl wikipedia) and prevent a fair trial, which can be grounds for appeal or even allow someone to go free. Its not just a legal matter, but a moral one. Im not putting forward a position at this stage, just playing devil's advocate. -- Nbound (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know this is going to sound more negative that is really intended but...that's not really our problem IMO. Especially if the vast majority of the worlds media is already reporting it. Kumioko (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In this single case, yes. In every case? No... -- Nbound (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes your right, in this case. I should have clarified that. I think the WMF legal can offer better insight but I don't think we have anything to worry about with this case. Since our servers are in the US I think there is more to worry about from them but there have been numerous examples where we told them no too. Kumioko (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If the British press does not carry the name of the victim, then there will be no local sources available for the article. Also, we can avoid mentioning the name of the victim who is relatively unknown in the spirit of avoiding victimization. There is a presumption in favour of privacy. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  10:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes British courts try to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, so to speak, which is true of this case where there was plenty of "local" coverage prior to the court order, so sources are easily available. National British stories end up in the Irish press anyway which are not subject to restrictions, so sources are nearly always available. I think there can be good policy based reasons for omitting content, but that's for normal consensus based editing to decide, and this is just part of a wider issue. British gagging orders are becoming all too frequent, sometimes with celebrities obtaining them to prevent the British press from publishing details of extra-marital affairs such as the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy. It's time to clear up the confusion IMO, since it's not good if British courts are censoring Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After being rather stern above, I'll now say the English courts can be excessive to the point of becoming ridiculous. Peter Tobin, who you mentioned above, was in the the UK headlines, then became prominently anonymous (but it was obvious who it was without looking on the internet) and then reappeared again. Thincat (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

One must clarify the question. If you mean "can a country attack one of their own citizens for what they did or didn't do on Wikipedia" (if they managed to find out who they are) I'd say that there is nothing stopping them except for the systems within their own country. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that goes without saying: if an Iranian editor posts something critical of its government on Wikipedia and the Iranian authorities get wind of it, I don't think the Foundation pointing out that the servers are not based in Iran will hold much sway. However, I think a more interesting question would be whether a British court could effectively compel Wikipedia to turn over the identities—or at least the IP addresses—of British editors which may have contravened a court order? I would be interested in knowing what legal powers—if any—a British court could exercise over Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe, and IANAL, that British courts hold absolutely no power over Wikipedia, since Wikimedia itself has no presence within its jurisdiction. If British prosecutors wanted to get whatever information Wikimedia has on editors who have touched such articles, I believe they would have to petition American courts under American law. Resolute 18:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a red herring, because we can take the decision to redact the name on the basis of the common human decency mandated by our WP:BLP policy without worrying about any legal niceties. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no rule saying that we cannot discuss the general principle, This is the policy village pump, not the individual cases village pump.


 * As for "We can't permit Wikipedia to be under the jurisdiction of every court in the world." neither I or Wikipedia are subject to Chinese law, but if I edit the Falon Gong page and later visit China, I could be arrested. Likewise, if a British court orders Wikipedia to turn over the identity of a user and Wikipedia refuses, in theory Sue Gardner could be arrested upon visiting the UK or even visiting Germany with a stopover at Heathrow. There is nothing the WMF could do about this other than make a public protest. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Guy Macon. It is awfully xenophobic of us to say "only Florida and US laws and that's it period". Imagine if GE, Honeywell, Microsoft, Google, and other US companies that have wanted to merge have told the EU that two multi-national companies based in the US are NOT subject to their regulations on anti-trust laws and they didn't need EU permission to merge. Of course Wikimedia lawyers would know what to do best, but on our end shouldn't we consider ourselves a multinational corporation under the jurisdiction of every place we "do business" or have a "presence" which would basically be wherever our editors are editing from. Which by jurisdiction I mean they can try to prosecute whatever they want but actually they are limited by who they can get their hands on. (Eg- If you shoot someone who is in Mexico and you are standing on the US side of the border, and you have never been to Mexico, therefore not a fugitive from justice, can you be extradited? Can a US state court try you for a murder that did not technically occur in that state, let alone the US?)Camelbinky (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing xenophobic about stating the fact that having no presence in a jurisdiction means you are not subject to that jurisdiction's laws. And no, we are not a multinational corporation, nor should we pretend to be. Resolute 19:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy is right that there are (at least in theory) risks for editors. We need to make editors aware of them.  But I stand by my statement.  We need to take the hardest possible line against the tendency of governments to meddle outside their borders.  So, once again:  Florida and the US govt, period. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My recollection is that Wikimedia servers is out of date and this says there are three locations for the servers, so I am not sure that will affect what laws WMF uses now. I do know that British law has pretty near zero affect on anything that I do. In the case where France wanted its radio transmitter article deleted, not only was it not deleted, but it became a top viewed article, so the backlash was enormous. I would personally recommend making decisions based on their encyclopedic value, rather than on the whims of any government. Apteva (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To really make it complicated, the WMF happens to be a Utah corporation (because Utah laws are very forgiving for non-profit groups... like Delaware does with for-profit corporation and seemingly everybody of any size is registered in that state as a corporation). In addition, the WMF headquarters happens to be in California, so I'd suspect that all three states (Florida, Utah, and California) might be an issue from time to time.  Most of the servers are still in Florida from my recollection.  The main issues would be if Wikipedia was seen to promote illegal activity of some sort (like child porn or drug sales seem to be good examples... some of the issues on Commons could be mentioned here).


 * There are "local" groups like Wikimedia UK that certainly could be subject to UK law though, especially its officers and fundraising efforts. I know that Wikimedia Italia has been the subject of several lawsuits and has caused all sort of grief (in part because of Italian law that encourages such lawsuits).  While it would be nice to think that Wikipedia servers are isolated from the rest of the world, some care does need to happen with some "common sense" as applied to dealing with laws in countries other than the USA.  Suggesting that a UK court has direct jurisdiction over content on Wikipedia is certainly a bit of a stretch, but life could certainly get uncomfortable for many volunteers and fundraising could certainly end in a country if Wikipedians are doing things which offends that local government.


 * I seriously doubt much fundraising happens in Iran or Taliban-occupied Pakistan in terms of WMF activities, so trying to appease those governments is less likely to be a concern. On the other hand, Wikimedia UK does quite a bit of fundraising, and there certainly are plenty of UK residents who participate in editing and administering en.wikipedia.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a UK resident, and I fully accept that the UK government has jurisdiction over anything I post on Wikipedia. Heck, I don't even hide behind a pseudonym, so I wouldn't exactly be hard to find. Eric   Corbett  00:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should be focusing on offering guidance/warnings to British editors, to help them understand personal legal implications. Consider the reports of the tweeters/facebookers who were convicted recently for naming a rape victim, under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. 10 people were criminally convicted in a Magistrates' Court; they were ordered to pay £624 compensation each to the victim, and one was fined £405 + £615 costs as well. In a way these cases were more serious than a WP editor might be in, as some of the comments were malicious and the victim had never been named before in the media, but OTOH a WP article might be seen by a lot more people. There is some useful discussion of this on this good legal blog. So a UK WP editor editing about some Sexual Offences cases does seem to have a realistic possibility of getting into a bad mess. I wonder if we should create a Template notice warning UK editors that section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 might realistically apply to an article's content, similar to Template:Sub judice UK. Rwendland (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why stop at UK editors? Other countries have suppression orders too -- Nbound (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea, and sure, for other countries too. Editors should be apprised of any risks they personally face, to the extent we can reasonably determine them.  (This last point is problematic, of course; it's not clear to what extent we can determine that, and certainly we don't want the absence of such a notice ever to be taken as a guarantee of safety.  Probably any such notice should prominently note that its absence should not be construed as an all-clear.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what the point is here. If I were to accuse UK Prime Minister David Cameron of paying for sex with an underage prostitute, as Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of today, I might reasonably expect to have to defend myself in court. Eric   Corbett  02:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not under discussion. This section is about gag orders, not libel. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering the WMF's position under this law (section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), and assuming the unlikely possibility that WMF had any manifestation in the UK that was capable of being prosecuted, there seem to be some tricky to decide legal questions: Not sure if this helps clarify very much, but this seems to be what an amateur reading of this law suggests. (There could be court orders that apply as well.) Lucky WMF does not have a UK office! Rwendland (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The law applies to things "published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public" - so would an English court consider WP published in England? It seems to regard twitter/facebook as published in England (see prosecution reports above), so this seems likely.
 * In the case of a newspaper or periodical, a journalist/writer would be in the clear, as section 5 of the Act says only "any proprietor, any editor and any publisher" can be prosecuted. But for a website "the person publishing the matter" can be prosecuted, and considering the twitter/facebook prosecution example again it seem possible the UK based writer is covered by this.
 * But if the courts did consider WMF Inc to be the publisher instead, then the executives "of the body corporate" could also be prosecuted if the disclosure was "with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of" the executive. I have no idea if this could be used against any WMF executives travelling in the UK, without also prosecuting WMF Inc itself.
 * The WMF is fairly flame-proof I think, but not us editors. Eric   Corbett  02:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So in such cases it is probably better that the article be edited by persons from outside the country. If there are editors who never even plan to go to that country, all the better. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Failing to execute a court order may seem impolite to the British, but, IMO, it's better to be rude than to tolerate abuse of juducial power. --Синкретик (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Gendered changes needed in Washington state related articles?
Per this news article, Washington state has banned sexist language in that state. "Freshman is now "first year student," fisherman is now "fisher," and penmanship is now "handwriting," just to name a few." Does there need to be a change of terminology in articles on people from Washington state? Is there a policy in place to cover this, or does a new one need to be created?-- Auric    talk  20:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, unless there is more to this, it only looks like they are removing such words from state documents, not that such words are "banned". This is one of the least sensational pieces I could find, which states "the ban only applies to state statutes". Chris857 (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on how this relates to WP:GNL?? The policy already says use gender-neutral language, doesn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sexist language is protected absolutely by the first amendment. The WA law only applies to Washington state employees and only when drafting official state documents. We are not employed by WA, nor is this 'pedia an official state document, so that doesn't apply here. We might nonetheless still choose to use our freedom of speech to prefer gender-neutral language as a matter of decency and general good writing, but in that case, we'd do so globally, not just in pages relating to Washington. Kilopi (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Contrary to WP:GNL, some Wikipedians (most especially those whose main interests include chess) prefer gender-generic "he" over gender-neutral language as standard English. Georgia guy (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He, and the word "man" in words is already the gender-neutral word, as it is in numerous Indo-European languages where the masculine is the gender-neutral when referring to a mixed-group of male and female, and many non-Indo-European languages such as most (or all?) Semitic tongues. There is nothing "sexist" about words that have "man" or "men" in it. I'd love to see what they do when the words menstruate, menopause, and manslaughter show up in official state documents.Camelbinky (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why was I taught that "he" was a male pronoun when I was little then?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You were taught that "he" is a masculine pronoun because it is a masculine pronoun. The rule in question is that the masculine gender is used to refer to persons of unknown gender.  While that is a rule of long standing, some people, mostly but not all female, object to it, considering it derogatory to women.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Camelbinkys think it is gender-neutral language to use gender-generic "he". That's why I have this question. The answer would be "People are sometimes taught only one definition of a word when two definitions are proper." Georgia guy (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is true that sometimes a word has two definitions rather than one, and this is an example, that "he" may have either masculine gender or common/animate gender. Some people consider the use of "he" as a common-gender pronoun to be derogatory.  I would consider it derogatory to myself if "she" was the standard referent for persons of unknown gender, and so I can see where they are coming from.  In any case, the law only applies to official documents in Washington state.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But do you think that it doesn't apply to Wikipedia?? Please go to WP:GNL. Georgia guy (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Washington State law only applies to Washington State documents. It doesn't apply to Wikipedia articles.  For instance, it doesn't apply to Washington (state) or Spokane.  WP:GNL is an essay, not a policy, but I agree that the use of gender-neutral language is desirable, and the use of "he" as a common gender pronoun as well as its standard use as the masculine gender pronoun is not gender neutral.  I will try to avoid referring to editors as "he" unless I can infer their gender from their handle.  "Georgia guy" can be inferred to be male. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially since "menstruate" and "menopause" come from the same root as "month" and "moon", not "man" or "men"? ;) Anomie⚔ 22:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe some MENtoring on the subject...  Primergrey (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wonder what they'll do about Woman, Women and Female. Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Oh, you mean womyn... postdlf (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, cant we just put all this behind us... into history and herstory. Puns are funsCamelbinky (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

RFCs on FA changes

 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates discussion leading to the two current RFCs
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates first one
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates first alternate
 * I suspect there will be other versions posted. Pumpkin Sky  talk  13:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian Images - Copyright
Im not sure the existing guidelines are clear on what constitutes PD in both the US and AU are entirely clear (either on the PD-Australia Template, or elsewhere). Most editors seem to think that anything pre-1955 (PD in AU date), pre-1946 (URAA date -50yrs), or even pre-1923 (published PD in US date) is fine. When none of these is necessarily the case. Unpublished works can be be covered by copyright in the US upto 120 years. Many AU images are taken from government archives and likely never saw the light of day (at least provably) prior to being made available on websites in the last 10-20yrs. And are possibly covered under these provisions. This could be something to be worried about? Perhaps Im misreading... Perhaps this has already been discussed? Hell, I'd like to have a better idea even so I know what I can upload. -- Nbound (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't give you any concrete discussions, but from a Canadian perspective, I've generally seen it held that something created before 1946 can be safely claimed as PD in the US. I think the same would be true for Australian images. Resolute 15:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * USA and Australia have very different rules for Australian works.
 * Australian copyright status: use terms in PD-Australia.
 * US copyright status: PD in the following situations, not PD in other situations:
 * PD if the material satisfies the terms in PD-US-unpublished, regardless of the copyright status in Australia.
 * PD if the material was published before 1923, regardless of the copyright status in Australia.
 * If published for the first time between 1 January 1923 and 28 February 1989 (inclusive), and the copyright already had expired in Australia by 1996, then check Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright for subsisting copyrights. If there is no subsisting copyright, then the material is in the public domain in the United States, but if there is a subsisting copyright, then the material is copyrighted in the United States. For the Australian copyright status in 1996, see PD-Australia but substitute 1954 with 1946.
 * I see that PD-Australia doesn't tell when literary works (such as books) enter the public domain in Australia. I assume that this is an omission in the template. The problem is that USA doesn't use the rule of the shorter term and that US copyright terms are very different to Australian copyright terms, so a work is often in the public domain in USA but not in Australia, or vice versa.
 * You can find the above information by carefully reading Rule of the shorter term, WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, Commons:COM:URAA and URAA.
 * The problem with the US copyright law is that it heavily depends on when something was published for the first time. The publication history of a historic image is often not easily available, so it is often difficult to tell whether a photo has been published at some earlier point or when it was first published.
 * Also, if they were first published "10-20 years ago", then beware of the provisions in US copyright law which say that Australian photos taken before 1978 but first published between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002 are protected by copyright in the United States at least until the end of 2047 (see Commons:COM:HIRTLE), without any regard at all to the date when the photos were taken (i.e. this rule also applies to photos which are several centuries old but remained unpublished until the period between 1989 and 2002). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont know exactly when these internet archives came online, and individual images would obviously have different dates anyway. Many AU images are unpublished (at least provably), and much newer than 1893, this could present a serious copyright problem for Wikipedia/Commons. Even on an article like Sydney Harbour Bridge, theres a lot of old photographs that are definitely PD-Australia, but not provably PD-US. Similar issues exist on any article containing photgraphs form that era (and there is alot of them) -- Nbound (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How were the images stored before they were published online? Many images are kept in physical form in a public archive, and if anyone was allowed to walk into the archive to see the physical photos, then the photos would probably count as "published" (according to the US definition) on the first date that the general public was allowed to do this, at least if you were allowed to obtain a copy of the photos (using a camera, a photocopying machine or whatever). See Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which tells that exhibiting a painting at a museum or a statue in a park sometimes constitutes publication, in particular if this happened before 1978 (when the meaning of the term "publication" changed slightly in US law). On the other hand, if the photos are private photos stored in a private photo album, then we have a big problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its going to be very hard to prove when they were made publically available, as they dont usually say when they were made available to the public. Some are govt works, some are purchased/acquired private sets. Next to none state any publication information whatsoever. I would presume the onus is on us to prove the images are PD or remove them from WP?. -- Nbound (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In some way, yes, that's probably how it must be. There have been numerous discussions on Commons about the problem of establishing publication (especially with regard to paintings but photos suffer from the same problem), but people try to avoid and disregard this problem due to the disasters a strict enforcement and request for prior publication might cause, acknowledging that it is usually very hard to find the information. I'm not sure what would happen if someone would sue you and claim that a work is unpublished if you can't provide proof of publication in court. The person suing you might not be telling the truth, but you have no way to prove this. I would concentrate on photos taken in 1946 or later as those are much more unlikely to be in the public domain in the United States and leave the rest for now at least, unless you have a good indication that the photo is unpublished.
 * For Australian paintings, the problem is usually that you need to show that the painting was exhibited at a museum before 1923 and that the museum allowed people to take photos of the painting. If the painter died before 1946, it is enough if the exhibition was before 1978. This first requires us to know when and where the painting was exhibited, and also whether the museum allowed people to take photos at that time. Even if you find out that a painting was exhibited at a specific museum in 1920, how would you determine whether the museum allowed people to take photos at the museum in 1920? It's usually easy to find out whether a museum currently allows people to take photos, but it is much harder to find out what the policy was 90 years ago.
 * For Australian photos, the task is usually to locate a newspaper from the 1920s or 1930s in which the photo was published. However, there were thousands if not millions of newspapers published during that time, and you can hardly search through them all. A good thing, though, is that you can use newspapers as your source for the photos. If you find a photo in an Australian newspaper from 1930, then you know that you can scan the newspaper and upload the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Trove, searching newspapers is actually easy, unfortunately, there arent too many images in newspapers of that age. In general though, the answer for the majority of these images (100s/1000s) is essentially the Wikipedia version of cover our ears and say LALALA, and hope nothing happens? :S. This seems very odd especially when we goto so much trouble to state why we think other images are fair use. -- Nbound (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A new policy needed: Using questionable sources, and discussing fringe claims and issues
The problem: There is a need for discussing and reporting on fringe claims, and people and organizations around them. But the primary sources for showing these claims, are exactly those designated as questionable or biased sources.

The current status: wp:V (verifiable sources) states: The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

This means that sometimes they can be used. When?

Questionable sources are defined by the policy as: Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

Questionable sources cannot be used for: Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.

But in the section: 'Biased or opinionated sources' the policy states: Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Although immediately following, the policy states: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

IMHO, and I hope to have a good discussion on this, we should have clearly defined ways to use biased or questionable sources, in particular with articles dealing with fringe claims, as I'll explain immediately:

The need: Since the 1980's and more so since the 1990's and the web revolution, there has been more and more knowledge which is "noise" to the established world of information, but which nevertheless exists as information. I'm talking about views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. In the past, encyclopedias and other 'respected' publications would steer away from this type of information. But there is no way of getting around it: Today, that information, even if it is controversial or misleading, is available and widely spread. And narratives change with time. What yesteryear was extremist, today is conformist. It needs to be dealt with.

Some say to simply disregard it. But it isn't blowing away. IMHO and probably many other wikipedians will agree with me, there should be some way to deal with this information, and it is important to bring it up on the wikipedia itself. So for example when dealing with a claimed "alternative" medical procedure which has caused death it should be clearly described, along with the damage it has caused. When there is a conspiracy theory it should be stated clearly along with its refutation.

I believe that this would be a better policy than just ignoring fringe claims and their sources. If you agree with me till now, the next thing needed is a discussion on using questionable sources in this context: There are four types of sourcing required: So the following cases should IMHO be discussed, and not pushed aside offhand:

1. Notability (or notoriety) and specifics of claims In many cases, conspiracy theories, "alternative methods" in science and medicine, controversial political claims, and other "fringe claims", will be dealt with by "established sources" only on the main issues, but with no details about the (usually living) people and organizations that are connected to those claims, and missing specifics in the claims. Examples: In all these cases, you would probably need to resort to using a questionable resource. There should be some policy specified for that.
 * a. Proving that someone is famous for a fringe claim (a "suppressed scientist" according to conspiracy theories)
 * b. Proving that a fringe claim is commonly used by conspiracy theorists, eg. some "over-unity" energy generation unit
 * c. Explaining the specifics of a fringe claim e.g. the details of a claimed "alternative medical procedure".
 * d. Showing the source of a fringe claim e.g. telling who claimed that the Boston bombing was staged.

2. Refutation from biased sources: In other cases, fringe claims show up in the media, on the internet and even in published books, and are contested only by writings in blogs, complaint websites, or "debunking" fora and organizations. For example: In this case, it would be logical to point to the (biased) source.
 * A book publicized by an "alternative medicine" promoter, and dealt with only by an organization (biased in itself, but using established primary sources) refuting the book online.

3. Personal postings: There are cases where a person who's views are being debated posts information in their own words, on a well know blog, or in their own blog.
 * a. Used to show someone's personal view: A public notice posted on their personal blog
 * b. Used to show someone's personal view: A public posting on a well known blog, or in the social media

4. Proving a claim is fringe: Sometimes a wikipedia article may contain a fringe claim, showing it as an accepted claim. The only way to show that the claim is a fringe claim is by pointing to questionable sites, either from the refuting party or from the fringe claim sites.

Your thoughts? Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you confused "questionable" sources and "biased" (or "non-neutral") sources? Questionable sources are sources that have no established reputation for meeting relevant standards of research.  The result is that questionable sources are largely limited as to for what types of claims they can be used as reliable sources.  Biased sources are sources that favour a point of view.  The categorization of sources as biased is independent from the categorization of sources as reliable.  That's what the two quotes on biased sources are trying to communicate:  That a source is identified as biased means it must go through the regular process of checking whether it is reliable.  That a source is identified as questionable means it has already been ruled out as a reliable source for most types of claims.  -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding 1. c,d, and 3. My understanding is that any source can be used for the statement "the source says X" (e.g. "The para-quasi-pseudo-phsychophysics blog SRSLY GUYZ! TRTH claims that hamsters can levitate small metallic objects with their minds" (reference: SRSLY GUYZ! TRTH)).  Of course, you need to take care with WP:UNDUE in this situation. MChesterMC (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)
New rfc on a longstanding proposal. Also listed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Are online references mandatory for new articles?
Below is an extract from a discussion I had when trying to go through the AfC process (I have removed the other persons identifier as it is not relevant):


 * Your references are not verifiable. Please find online references to support your submission's verifiability. 03:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are saying, for instance, that the New York Times is not verifiable? If so then what do you mean by verifiable? If you conclude that only online references are verifiable then that is an incorrect interpretation of Wiki's rules. What is necessary is a reliable Source, not a verifiable online reference (although that is useful). I refer you to WP:RS which sets out what sources are appropriate. NealeFamily (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that New York Times is not verifiable. What I want to say is that your submission cannot be verified by books or newspaper articles only. You also need to add some online references along with it. 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know if an article must have online references or not. I can not find anything that states this as necessay. All I have found is that the primary criteria is WP:RS. I just want to make sure I am following the right line of thought. NealeFamily (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An unfortunately too-common misconception. Sources need not be online, no. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is correct. We require sourcing but the sourcing need not be online. It's easier if it is online to create articles but we don't limit sourcing to that. --M ASEM (t) 05:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another good example of a terrible AfC review. Why isn't there a vetting process for AfC reviewers? Even a minimal one, like for rollback&mdash; easy to get in, yet easy to get the tool pulled if the reviewer isn't competent. Far too often I've seen clueless reviewers reject perfectly fine articles (or reject a poor article but don't have the communication skills necessary to let the author understand what the problem is) and I sometimes wonder if this is even a bigger problem for new editor retention than the usual suspects. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Can I suggest a modification to WP:RS in an appropriate place that states: there is no requirement for all or any sources to be online ones for an article, but if available online sources are useful. or at least something along those lines. NealeFamily (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I added one sentence to Verifiability. Take a look at that. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That captures the heart of the issue. Thank you. NealeFamily (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, online (reliable) sources are not mandatory, as they may also come from print-only materials not available online (e.g. print newspapers, old magazines, etc.). Since this is an online encyclopedia, FUTON bias is going to exist, but it shouldn't get in the way of verifiability if just print-only sources are available. --MuZemike 20:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note for this particular user, and I've amended the AFC reviewing instructions to address this error. In his defense, he seems to have just been copying what he saw someone else doing, which is what most of us do around here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks WhatamIdoing. I don't want to discourage the user as they are very diligent. Hopefully they will take as being in good faith. NealeFamily (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Points of view and reporting the speech of others.
Thanks so much to everyone who responded to my last question here, concerning this encyclopedia's scope. I have another question now, and I really want as many responses as possible, so thanks in advance to anyone who answers.

WP:NPOV is about points of view. I think we all basically agree what a point of view is, and we even agree that various clauses, sentences, paragraphs, et cetera can express or represent a point of view. So for example, "the cause of the diversity of species is evolution" expresses the mainstream, scientific point of view. And "the cause of the diversity of species is intelligent design" expresses a fringe, creationist point of view.

If you include either of these clauses as sentences without the quotation marks in an article, the statements would then be in the authorial voice of the article, and—insofar as the article contains such a statement—the article would be expressing the corresponding point of view. But what happens when such clauses are not in the authorial voice of the article? What if they are given while reporting the speech of others, either in direct speech or indirect speech? What point of view is being expressed in such a case?

For example, if you include "Professor Nobody says that the cause of the diversity of species is intelligent design" as a sentence without the quotation marks in an article, what is the point of view that would be expressed? Is it the same point of view as before—a fringe, creationist point of view—or is it the point of view that Profressor Nobody has a fringe creationist point of view?

That really is my question. I've so far found anecdotally that editors go either way on this one (which is really quite amazing, because it so fundamentally affects the application of WP:NPOV), but I really want a broader survey. Thank you. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: The example is just an example. Take any other example: "Hitler said that Roma people were part of an inferior race." Is the point of view expressed the fringe point of view (i.e., they are inferior), or the non-fringe point of view (i.e., Hitler held that racist view) that if that sentence is included in some relevant article? -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

EDIT 2: Forget any example if you must. Consider all sentences that are treatable as being of the form: Someone in some way made some claim. Are the points of view expressed by such sentences (1) in some way expressed by the claims that are in the grammatically reported speech, or are the points of view (2) that those persons made those claims in that way? So the question can be fairly answered with "1" or "2"; "the former" or "the latter". If you think the point of view expressed depends on other factors outside of the sentence itself (e.g., in which article the sentences are included, or exactly what claims are being reported, etc.), that is also an answer I am very interested in hearing, i.e., a "3" or "it depends" answer. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are getting at. I would say the point of view being expressed is that Professor Nobody has expressed (and unless otherwised qualified still holds) the stated view about the cause of the diversity of species. In other words, it expresses a view about what Professor Nobody says. It expresses no view about the actual cause of the diversity of species and, by itsef, expresses no view on whether such a view is fringe or otherwise.--Boson (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC) PS: In context, of course, there might be a number of implied points of view, for instance if no other views are presented and Professor Nobody appears to be presented as an authority. --Boson (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The situation is this: In an article on the professor, a statement of what the professor believes or has said is fine; in an article on ID (and assuming that sources show the statement is a reasonable summary of the ID position), the statement is fine. However, in an article on any scientific topic, the statement must not be used as it would be WP:UNDUE—there are many very reliable sources supporting the evolution-is-a-fact POV, so the contrary opinions of a couple of professors would not be warranted. We also have WP:ONEWAY which asserts that an article on ID can (indeed, should) mention that evolution is an established science, but an article on evolution does not mention ID (unless the article concerns a creationist controversy). Another example is Barrack Obama which states that he was born in Honolulu, with no mention of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in the article, although a link occurs in the navbox at the bottom. Text like "media commentator X says Obama was born in Kenya" will not appear in the main article because that view is WP:FRINGE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The example is just an example. I'm not asking whether the statement should be included anywhere; I don't think there is any need to talk about reliability or any other issue; in fact, just assume that the statements are founded on sources which are completely reliable.   I'm asking what is the point of view expressed by the statement. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have read more closely, I think you pretty much answered the question with your last sentence. I just want to clarify, is it your opinion that the point of view of a sentence containing reported speech can change depending on what article it is in? -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My two bobs worth. If the statement had no quote marks it is the article authors paraphrase of what was said. With quote marks it is a third parties paraphrase of what the person said. It does not change the meaning, only the source of the statement. NealeFamily (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate the above, "Hitler thought X" will not require much by way of balance in an article about Hitler, but much more balance in an article about X - where it might be a fringe theory or not be worthy of mention at all. It's all a case of framing the NPOV question in the right way. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you too are of the opinion that I imagine Johnuniq also espouses (I'm still waiting for his definitive answer): The same sentence containing reported speech can represent one point of view in one article, but a different point of view in another article? -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That is possible, based on its context within both articles. In one article you could hold a statement as supporting the articles viewpoint, while in another article, for instance, it could be used to show bias towards a particular viewpoint.


 * The nastiest use of a quote I heard was a Political Science professor in a lecture ascerting that context was irrelevant so long as what was said supported your claim. So I guess what I am saying is the context of the quote within an article can change the meaning of the quote. NealeFamily (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with vanity in BLPs
Is there any policy or guidance regarding how to deal with situations where a living person claims a certain date of birth but numerous other sources say otherwise? This is a hypothetical situation but it is or was the case that, for example, some actors would knock a few years off their age. Does the presumption of "least harm" apply and thus we pander to their vanity? Similarly, if there are two perfectly acceptable images, do we prefer an obviously Photoshopped/airbrushed image of a living person over a less vain one simply because the former is their "official" image? - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The date of birth question is clear. The date that is reported in reliable sources is date that we should report.  With birth date, pandering to the principle of "least harm" would allow people to introduce unsourced false information.  That applies to any fact in a biography of a living person where the person contradicts a reliable published account.  (If there are conflicting dates for the birth of a person, both in reliable sources, they should both be included.)  If the person has knocked a few years off his or her age, that can be noted if it is considered notable.  Otherwise the reliable date of birth should be used.  An obviously photoshopped image is a more difficult case, because it is still a likeness, but I would still prefer to use a picture taken by photographer who did not have a conflict of interest.  Does anyone have any further thoughts on the photoshopped images?  I think that the question about an altered birth date is obvious.    Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We prefer free images (that is, those compatible with Wikipedia's copyleft licenses) over any other images, but editorial decisions about image quality are entirely up to editors. That is, where two free images are available, editors use discussions and consensus to decide whether to use one, both, or neither of the images based on relevance and aesthetics.  The opinion of the uploader and/or the subject of the article is not given any special weight in such discussions.  Of course, non-free images are not generally allowed where equivalent free images are available.  But being free does not force Wikipedia to use it, if there is a sound editorial reason not to.  -- Jayron  32  00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary consideration when choosing an image is pertinence and encyclopedic nature. My interpretation of that guideline is that a photoshopped image is a less accurate representation of the subject, and therefore has less encyclopedic value. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the birthdate question, if there are conflicting reports, then it's common to report the conflict. This is true even if the second date is just on the BLP's own blog:  "The Times says that Joe Film was born in 1964, but Film's blog says that he was born in 1965".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sitush. Hope you are well. The question:"Is there any policy or guidance regarding how to deal with situations where a living person claims a certain date of birth but numerous other sources say otherwise?" The answer is, that we have numerous separate guidelines that, when sourcing and giving strength to a particular "source" we have to ask if the verifiability of a primary source can trump a reliable secondary source.

The truth is, this really isn't a hypothetical. It seems to be somewhat common. I asked for guidance a while back on a situation at Jimbo's talk page and we discussed the strength of the sources verses the good faith assumption of what the subject may have meant when an inaccurate or conflicting date is given. The principle of "least harm" here is to assume the best with the subject regardless of what the decision of consensus is for dating. Here is what the consensus seems to have held in this last situation I am referring to. There was a valid, government birth record and enough information to rule out mistaken identity as there are already previous statements of the accurate dating in several sources, but far more by simple number with the inaccurate date. The date was changed to reflect the birth record confirmed by the earlier sources and more recent sources with the inaccurate date dismissed as a misreading of an off comment that seemed even the author saw as tongue in cheek.

BLP dating with simple math is allowed and common. BLP policy on "Tabloid journalism" sources help narrow the sources down to the strongest ones and primary sources on file may be used as dating but cannot be linked in the reference as personal information may be present. But if it can be confirmed to be the same individual, primary birth records have been used as verifiable sourcing especially when a secondary source does indeed mention that date.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that I understand about simple math. I agree that, if the date of birth is reliably sourced, determining the age is a matter of simple math.  Is that what is meant, or is it a matter of counting how many references there are to a particular stated date of birth?  I agree that, if date of birth is disputed, the one that is sourced to a government record, or to a secondary source that attests the government record, is the reliable one, no matter how many people have quoted the incorrect date of birth.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also would suggest that an actual government-provided date of birth is a secondary source. The primary source is the document filed by the hospital (or midwife) with the registrar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea that a birth certificate is a secondary source and is only published by the government in the documentation they provide. That makes some sense actually. And I meant that it is simple math if you have a person stating an age at 25 and they were born in May, you can use simple math to say they were born in May of 1988.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that Robert has suggested this idea before, and it's been roundly rejected every time. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN:  a faithful transcript of an eyewitness account (e.g., a birth certificate) is not magically a secondary source.  Secondary sources, especially in the sense that Wikipedia uses that term (and has since the term was first introduced into policy years ago), provide an intellectual component that transforms the primary source.  A secondary source provides analysis, comparison, interpretation, or other higher-order thinking.  A secondary source does not merely regurgitate what someone else wrote beforehand.
 * It is true that some fields use a notably weaker definition. I saw one website (genealogy, I think) claiming that a photocopy of an original was a secondary source, which is so laughable that I assume it was just some amateur who got things confused.  We've had many editors who believed that "primary" meant having a conflict of interest and "secondary" meant being independent.  This is also wrong:  WP:Secondary does not mean independent.  But there are some differences, and some of our editors are used to the more generous definitions used in their fields.  There's nothing wrong with that, so long as they remember that Wikipedia doesn't accept those definitions.
 * More importantly, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which outright bans the use of "public records that include personal details, such as date of birth". A birth certificate is definitely a public record.  You can also search BLPN and RSN for multiple discussions of whether it's okay to use a birth certificate.  It's never acceptable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "[I]f there are two perfectly acceptable images, do we prefer an obviously Photoshopped/airbrushed image of a living person over a less vain one simply because the former is their "official" image?" This is also very common. The answer seems to be that, official portraits provided by the subject that are preferred by the subject, have no stronger argument for use than the sci-fi convention snapshot taken at a table, or signing a book. We can photoshop as well, and I have removed objects from images from the consensus of the discussion, but...my experience has been that Wikipedia editors don't tend to like the glossy artistic portraits used by management agencies. They are not encyclopedic. Consensus rules, but I have never seen a discussion support a subjects preferred image over something that could be located with a suitable license.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Indic transliteration has been marked as a guideline
has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Usernames policy: Sock usernames property of sockpuppetier or wikipedia?
It doesn't matter how many socks user create, if he agrees to use only one account then as per current understanding all sock usernames becomes property of that user. If some genuine user wants to rename his/her account as 'X' but 'X' is blocked because it is sock then genuine user should enter in talk with owner of sock to 'release' his 'property account' in wikipedia public domain to be used for new users. This is completely illogical and outragious. I think policy is needed to deal with such situation. Currently I am facing such situation as you can see here. Thanks. neo (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why the stewards could not usurp the account, since it never should have been created? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes there is a reason: It has live edits. Whether it should have been created or not, usurping would misattribute those edits. If the user agreed to let the account be renamed to something else then it could be usurped, but otherwise, no, at least by understanding of how these things work. In any case this is pretty much out of our hands, SUL is a global policy and not under the control of the English Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Assuming the owner is no longer active and the account is abandoned, renaming to something link Sock(2010) where the year identifies the account creation would seem non-controversial. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No matter what, the account in question isn't even on en-wiki and is a global account tied to an account on wikiquote. Whether the account in question is active, blocked, a sock or an account of a Martian is moot. There is nothing that en-wiki can do here. Jguy TalkDone 13:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to contest it, meta would be the only place where it would be appropriate and heard. Not to seem pushy or trying to get you to go away or anything, but that's just the fact of Wikimedia. If an account isn't on en-wiki, especially with an upcoming policy, there is nothing we can do.Jguy TalkDone 13:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is distributed under CC-BY-SA which requires Wikimedia to present the user name chosen by the user when you look at a list of contributors. If you change the name in the list of contributors without asking the user for permission, then you might violate the user's copyright by renaming him. You should be careful with forceful renames. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could someone confirm that?  I had thought, both under GFDL, and CC-BY-SA, that the attribution had to identify the contributor, not necessarily the way the contributor wanted it identified.  Also, this would seem to mean that RevDel/Suppress of the contributor ID is prohibited unless the contribution is also RevDel'd.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. It says that you need to include "the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied". When you click on "Save page", you supply your user name, which is either your real name or a pseudonym, and this needs needs to be supplied whenever your work is used. The term "Original Author" is defined at the top of the licence: it includes all editors, not only the one who created the first revision of the file. Of course, if all contributions are deleted (including text in historical revisions of the page), then there is no need to keep the user name intact. In some cases, contributions by a sockpuppet may have been posted for a long time, meaning that there is no practical way to delete some of the contributions (for example, it might require deleting one hundred revisions of this page if the user participated in a discussion here). Also note that most user names are global for all Wikimedia projects, so a change of a user name may cause problems for other projects:
 * Some projects (for example Commons) do not have G5, so contributions to Commons can usually not be deleted.
 * English Wikipedia only cares about US law, but many other projects care about other countries' laws. A change of attribution may additionally violate moral rights in lots of countries.
 * Even if English Wikipedia approves a renaming, other projects where the sockpuppet has been active might oppose this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's a violation of CC-BY-SA for me to RevDel an editor name, even if the name is obscene or outing, and even if the edit is constructive (or cannot be RevDel'd because of intervening edits)? I see it is noted.  I'll keep that in mind.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Revision deletion, if the username is revdel'd, the corresponding edit must be reverted and revdel'd itself. There are exceptions listed, but some of them should be reverted anyway. If the username is grossly inappropriate and must be hidden, the same applies to the edit. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but CC-BY-SA does not take precedence over existing laws. According to the deed, reusers are required to include "the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied." I would argue that if the chosen pseudonym is libelous, then it would be illegal to include the pseudonym, hence making it not "applicable." -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This hypothetical should be rare because 1) WP:Usernames for administrator attention should block the account quickly, 2) the edit needs significant value to be considered, and 3) defamation is a subset of unacceptable usernames. According to United States defamation law, Florida – whose laws are generally considered to cover Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation – has statutes criminalizing defamation, so it is possible. My lay opinion is that the license and law are not contradictory but are mutually exclusive: the only outcome that violates neither is not using the content. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, if someone is a sock, then their contributions should be G5'd, so they do not need to be properly attributed. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) has been marked as a guideline
has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to the use of AfC, the Article Wizard, and/or mainspace
In case it was missed above, an RfC is going on to determine, for now, the community's views on the promotion of AfC vs. mainspace for new, registered users wishing to create articles. Further things may be added in the future or in future RfCs on the matter. Thanks ~ Charmlet -talk- 02:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable-source policy
Though one pretty generally approves of the practical effects of Wikipedia's reliable-source policy, the policy as written subtly contradicts practice. I believe that, though well-meant, it also contradicts NPOV, invites mischief, and wants much polishing. I refer specifically to these two passages:

"1. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."

"2. Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."

The two are intertwined, but let us draw them out one at a time.

The first passage means well but is clumsy and unfortunately wrong. The very phrase "in respected mainstream publications" almost generates its own retort: "Respected by whom?"

The second passage starts out okay, though it does run slightly afoul of nebulous "reputations." I especially appreciate the passage's excellent phrase, "lack meaningful editorial oversight." Regrettably, the passage suddenly derails the train of policy from the NPOV track with the words,

"[Questionable sources] include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist...."

No. A source is unalienably entitled to choose&mdash;and to express&mdash;its views without having Wikipedia thereby call its facts into question. If words like widely considered do not invite cant to screen the quiet trampling of NPOV, then I do not know what words would do so.

The policy is flawed. Proposals for change would therefore be well received. Tbtkorg (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me guess... you wanted to say something in an article and were told that the source you based it on was unreliable. (Not making an accusation... That's usually what inspires people to propose changes that particular policy). We might be able to better explain why the policy is the way it is if we knew the details. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I have little in the way of personal details to offer; sorry. However, if the first of the three objections&mdash;which is the objection to which you respond&mdash;is distracting the issue in your sight, then it will likely distract the issue in the sight of others, as well.  The first is not the main point, anyway.  Let me drop it for the present.


 * You mention others who have objected. Feel free to cite them if you have some time.  Tbtkorg (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just read through the archives at the WT:IRS talk page... its full of people complaining about the policy, and the replies they got. Those replies might help you to understand why the policy is the way it is. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Predecessor/successor fields in officeholder infobox
A discussion has been started here regarding the "predecessor" and "successor" fields in, and whether the usage should be changed or the fields should be removed entirely. —Designate (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on applying WP:NFCC to screenshots of TV episodes
There is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion that people here might be interested in. It concerns whether or not it violates WP:NFCC to show a screenshot in an article about a television episode. Your input would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry Statement
I am posting this question here, rather than at the talk page for WP:SOCK, not to forum-shop, because I am not a primary party anyway, but to get a quicker answer on a frequently visited page. However, the following statement was made: "For sock puppetry, seems there are many legitimate reasons for having sock puppets, and though usually you have to disclose that you are sock puppets, there are quite a few situations where you don't need to or even shouldn't disclose that you are sock puppets." Is it as bizarre as I think it is? Either an experienced editor has confused sock-puppets, a never permitted type of alternate account, with legitimate alternate accounts, which are used in special situations, or the editor is just confused, or am I mistaken? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sock puppetry page is very clear stating While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed. It then goes on to list what improper means. The editor or discussion you are talking about should be referred to that page. NealeFamily (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is exactly the same as my reading.  The other editor had read the policy, but paraphrased it wrong, thus changing its meaning almost 180 degrees.  I told him to re-read the policy again.  By the way, he wasn't defending sock-puppetry.  He was defending his question as to whether two of his opposing editors in a slow-motion edit war were sock-puppets.  I had said that his question about whether they were sock-puppets was a serious allegation, because sock-puppetry is normally dealt with blocking the sockpuppets, and sometimes the puppet-master, and sometimes even banning the puppet-master.  He was trying to defend his question/allegation as not necessarily a serious attack.  That is what is going on.  The basic problem is a slow-motion edit-war.  Many slow-motion edit wars have to do with countries that may be six thousand miles from the United States (or from the United Kingdom or from India or any other Anglophone country).  This has to do with a place that is ten thousand times as far away, that is, sometimes sixty million miles away.  It is not a country because it is not on Earth because it is Mars.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a sock puppet from Mars? Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. We had a question about there were Martian sockpuppets.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the ArbCom declined to go to Mars.   Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiLove in the name of hatred
You know, my conversation habits frequently border the domain of personal attacks, but when somebody posts to my user_talk with a primary intention to attack a third person (not myself), I simply remove that stuff. So, I was astonished to see this “gift” not only posted, but not deleted by the owner of this user_talk. Are there some special provisions, or were there some special discussions, about attacks made at irrelevant talk pages, concealed as gifts, or in other slanderous ways? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The only "provision" that applies is to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --85.197.3.203 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

deferring to another editor for one's own edits
Can an editor defer to another editor? Let me explain. If I challenge material which an editor has added to an article as not being supported by the source provided, can the editor then turn to me and say that I have to take this up with yet a third editor—an editor who suggested that edit to the person I am discussing this with? Obviously anyone can say anything. But is there any basis in policy for a person not being responsible for their own edit(s)? The third editor has been present as recently as a couple of days ago. I would think it likely that they will rejoin the discussion eventually. That third editor is being characterized as an "expert" by the person I am in discussion with. I also find the designation of "expert" somewhat questionable, as it should still be necessary to support material by sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Experts are valuable but ultimately edits, and their sourcing, need to stand on their own. If a source is cited and it does not verify the material it is purports to verify, it should absolutely be removed. The burden is always on the person wishing to keep challenged, unsourced material, by adding reliable sources (using inline citations). This situation is different because there is a putative source, but the policy is applicable by analogy, because a source that fails to verify is little different than no source at all. Anyway, instead of outright removal, you might tag with failed verification and discuss on the talk page and then wait a while for the third party to show up. This I would characterize as a concession to diplomacy and a method to avoid unnecessary drama, despite outright removal being warranted. On the other hand, be damn sure you're right about your underlying claim that the source does not actually verify the material it is cited in support of.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah... Unless this is a BLP situation, I would agree that the best approach is to tag the material and seek out the third editor (who hopefully can shed some light on the issue). It is rare that a content dispute needs to be settled right this minute. It often helps to put it on hold for a few days, while seeking third party opinions.  This may not end the dispute... but it does tend to make it less contentious. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When the third editor appears, perhaps this may need to go to WP:OR/N as it seems on the surface that the editor who added material based on the expert's knowledge of the source is doing so based only on the expert's "inside" knowledge expanding on what the source says. We cant expand on sources using information that the average editor does not have access to from general education. If the third person had added the information him(her)self then it would have been labeled as OR if he/she said it was because he/she knew because they were an "expert".Camelbinky (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pages with just a Soft Redirect to External Websites
Are pages like Ginifer King,Kayla Maisonet, Breanna Yde, Curtis Harris (actor), and Amber Montana allowed under Wikipedia policies? They are all just redirects to IMDB. I am not too sure about Wiki policy on this. According to the creator the aim is as follows: " I am adding the links to avoid redlinks to personal names for actors in an TV series article mainly to identify the actual person and avoid inline external links in article. This should be a valid use for soft redirects.". I would like some more feedback on this. -- TOW  talk   21:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think those are a valid use of soft redirects at all.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to take this to Redirects for discussion to get them deleted, as they don't fall under any of the acceptable categories for speedy deletion of soft redirects (and there isn't actually anything I have ever seen in policy regarding this), and as this isn't technically the best place for this discussion being the policy VP. I agree with Kwww that they should not exist, however policy is silent on the issue and should be re-written.Camelbinky (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any sense in that rule about soft redirects being excempted from WP:CSD except if it is meant only for Wikimedia-internal soft redirects – which, in my understanding, is the only valid use of soft redirects. What we have here is simply an external link wrapped in a fancy template which was never intended for this type of use, and I don't see why misusing a template should make the page exempt from A3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Future Perfect deleted them, but in absence of a specific rule, WP:IAR seems like it was appropriate in the case. Chris857 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While it may have been an appropriate use of WP:IAR I suggest User:Future Perfect at Sunrise familiarize him/herself with WP:Soft redirect which states:
 * "For purposes of administration, particularly deletion, soft redirects are subject to the same administration processes as regular redirects, and should not be handled by processes that are intended for articles. For deletion this means that soft redirects are subject to R2 - R3 speedy deletion criteria, and are not subject to A1 - A10 speedy deletion criteria. For more deliberative deletion, soft redirects should be handled through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and are not subject to either Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. They are also specifically subject to G8 deletion if their target does not exist, as this has replaced the old R1 criteria."
 * This obviously makes what Fut Per did incorrect on a technical basis, though I agree with the use of IAR in this particular case. I just think everyone needs to bone up on soft redirects before working on the basis of this discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The pages were inappropriately deleted and should be restored until discussion at the RfD discussion is completed. They are soft redirects being used appropriately as defined in WP:Soft redirect. There is no policy reason to delete them and CSD A3 is definitely not appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. There seems to be no intent that soft redirects should be allowed to other than MikiMedia projects.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll paste the appropriate sentence from the second paragraph of WP:Soft redirects but please everyone read from top to bottom the page so I don't have to keep doing this-
 * "The technique is particularly likely to be used when redirecting users across Wikimedia sister projects."
 * "particularly likely" means that it is just one example and not the only use. Geraldo is correct in that speedy was definitely not appropriate under CSD A3 because that deletion category is specifically declared not valid for soft redirects. As I first commented, there is an appropriate discussion board for this very discussion, please send it over to there if you want to delete a soft redirect. Speedy based on "it's an outside link" or "I don't like it" is not allowed.Camelbinky (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In further investigating all this, I find it bad faith for this discussion to have even begun while those actually were brought to the correct noticeboard, where a discussion should have continued. Forum shopping to get around proper noticeboard procedures occurred and this was just wrong, wrong, wrong. And to speedy delete something when a process at a proper noticeboard was ongoing is not something that should be encouraged or allowed to stand, especially when it was accomplished with a "reason" that violated policy wording outright. Policy wording specifically prohibits deletion on those grounds, there is no wiggle room.Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Deletion review/Log/2013 July 22 --Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)