Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 108

MOS and conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME
We seem to be getting a lot of contentious RM discussions recently that are highlighting a conflict between various MOS guidelines and WP:COMMONNAME... especially when it comes to music artists. I think we need broad community consensus on this conflict, and though I would raise it here for discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The conflict is resolved in the same way as any other policy vs guideline conflict; the policy (WP:COMMONNAME) overrides the guideline (WP:MOS). PantherLeapord (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but some people disagree so maybe an RFC is in order.  Ross  Hill  03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME isnt actually a hard and fast rule, though alot of people interpret it as such. There are many times when the most common name is actually rejected for reasons like ambiguity, inaccuracy, non-neutrality, etc. All the guidelines I am aware of are used as guides when always using the most common name in every instance would present problems. -- Nbound (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is part of the policy WP:TITLE. Whether WP:MOS applies to punctuation, and Capitalization, in titles is another matter, as WP:TITLE seems to be explicitly silent on that matter.  Furthermore, "consistency" (one of the criteria in WP:TITLE) may sometimes apply  where  might not believe it should apply.  I'm not familiar with the dispute in question, so my comments may not be completely on-point, but the first sentence is.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It not just one dispute... the conflict between COMMONNAME and MOS guidance has been at the heart of several recent RM disputes over what to entitle articles on music performers (for some examples see: Talk:Sunn O))), Talk:Deadmau5, Talk:RZA, and Talk:Tech N9ne... but there are others). While the specific MOS issues in each RM were slightly different, what they have in common is a fundamental disagreement over whether to follow COMMONNAME or MOS guidance.  I think this conflict needs to be examined, discussed and resolved... but since it involves multiple (equally important) policy/guidance pages, any discussion needs to be centralized at the community level.  We need to get a broad community consensus that will last.  There are valid points that support both sides of the debate, and the community needs to discuss them if we are to resolve the conflict. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The disputes were over how to apply MOS provisions such as MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM; they don't conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, which is a strategy for choosing a title, not how to style it per WP's style.   Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the disputes were purely over MOS, then why were so many editors citing COMMONNAME in those disputes? I respect that you may not want COMMONNAME to apply to such disputes, and that you would like to define such disputes purely in terms of MOS... but it is clear that a lot of other editors do think COMMONNAME applies and that it is directly relevant.  There is a conflict, and pretending that there isn't one will not resolve it. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors who don't like the styling specified by the MOS often try to say that we should let the styling of titles be driven by outside sources. But they are wrong.  COMMONNAME has never meant that.  And it makes no sense at all to have unique styling provisions for titles, different from what we have everywhere else.   The 4 cases you linked are all about MOS:TM, how to style trademarks, which of course would not involve any title-oriented arguments if we could agree on what MOS:TM should recommend.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "But they are wrong. COMMONNAME has never meant that." That's the conflict right there in a nutshell... I (and many other editors) think it has always meant that. When styling is part of a  name, the entire name (including the styling) is (and should be) driven by outside sources.  As for your concern about the title being different from the usage in the body of the text ... why would that even occur?  The names we use in the article text should (speaking in broad terms) also follow the predominant usage in the sources... per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically then you're agreeing that it's not about titles, but about whether we should style our articles by "follow the predominant usage in the sources" or by following our own house style, as worked out by consensus and documented in the MOS. This idea of overthrowing the consensus style by invoking COMMONNAME, which got stuck into a policy page in the great title turmoil of 2009, is really bogus.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the possibility that these RM disputes are indicating that "our own house style" (as it currently stands) doesn't actually have a consensus? It may be that the reason so many people are pointing (correctly or incorrectly) to COMMONNAME is that that COMMONNAME is the closest policy/guideline statement to what is the actual consensus.  Perhaps we need a WP:COMMONSTYLE guideline for names. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, COMMONSTYLE would be a helpful policy.  Ross  Hill  15:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing from Kindle version of a book
Hope this is the right place to ask this question - if not,please redirect me. I want to cite a source from a book. I have it on Kindle so the traditional page references aren't feasible. So can I give the Kindle location number instead of page reference?--Smerus (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:Page numbers. I would include the location number and identify the edition. -- Neil N   talk to me  21:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a Kindle, but I know that some Kindle editions do have page numbers which match with a physical edition. If they are included, you can tell what page number you are at by pressing 'menu', and the page number should display with the progress bar. The standard way to cite would be to list chapter (if applicable), section (if applicable) and then paragraph number. There's certainly nothing wrong with including the location number, however. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

On a more general note, I think that while we should not of course exclude cites to Kindle versions or other e-books, we should nevertheless openly prefer cites to hard copy/print editions, and migrate cites from e-book editions to print editions. Many Kindle editions of books have conversion errors (at least in my experience) or are lacking supplemental materials such as photos or maps due to licensing or tech limitations; Kindle editions remain alterable or removable by Amazon, and so at least have the potential for instability regardless of what their current policy says they might do; it is arguably easier and more clear to cite to a print book's page than to a location in an e-book; and no matter what people say about "the death of print" a hard copy will continue to exist and be locatable in libraries, while we have no way of knowing if the Kindle format or other particular proprietary e-book formats will become obsolete or what would happen to support for and accessibility of a particular format if it does. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to all for these guides and opinions.--Smerus (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the eBook doesn't have page numbers, my strategy is to type a phrase or a sentence into google books. Usually you'll get the corresponding page numbers as part of the search results. GabrielF (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Threatens to Ruin Wikipedia
I have been a registered and active member on Wikipedia for 3 years. I created several articles a few years ago and used the wizard at first and from what I recall had no problem. Recently I wanted to create a new article as a “stub” and properly tag it and let the community contribute. I could not remember how to create an article and so I Google searched "Wiki Create New Article" and it gave me Starting an article which gives 3 options Sandbox, User Page or Wizard. I was confused and also surprised when I was done to be “locked into” a review process. This process is not only unneeded but threatens to ruin what Wikipedia is. I logged into the IRC to ask what to do and no one was on. The next day after my article was denied (big surprise), I was able to login and find out how to use the old process but with a warning of how my article will probably be deleted. Total biased nonsense!

AFC is deceitful as it never provides the option or even a link for the user to bypass the review process. Even though this is supposed to be “optional” for editors, it never provides any way outside of it (except for sandbox and user page for testing). Many people (such as myself) get locked into this unwillingly and since it should be an option it outright deceitful.

With the exception of protected and semi-protected articles any user may freely contribute and edit Wikipedia. What if it was setup that it was not so simple to see and you did a Google search and found a wizard and then your edit was put into a “review” process? This is outright dangerous!

Additionally I fail to see how AFC has some how stopped or cut down on SPAM (as I am not sure what the whole purpose of it is) as I view and flag tons of newly created articles daily. You can look at the "thousands" we get and how many are flagged for speedy delete. The impact has little to no effect on intentional SPAMMERS as they are experienced to bypass it.

Also it is dangerous in that if "AFC Admins" have a conflict of interest OR lack the knowledge of the subject they can keep denying it. Again this threatens what Wikipedia is about.

In my opinion this AFC is not needed whatsoever since users have the Sandbox or User Page to create and test an article and thus AFC only serves to grant the AFC group “control” and “power” over what articles maybe submitted. For example why was my new article denied? Because it was a stub? I propose that at the very least if AFC is kept that is not setup to be deceitful and “lock users” into it, the process should give users a clear option at the start or at the end or the article to opt out and proceed to post. As it is setup now, new users cannot use the wizard without being “locked into” a political biased and potentially abusive system. Tyros1972 Talk 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that if the purpose of not adding a clear and obvious option to “opt out of AFC” and proceed to post unreviewed defeats the whole purpose of AFC, or that users will not use the AFC process; then that clearly shows how AFC is not needed. It also proves that users are NOT using it willingly, that they (like myself) were locked into it. Tyros1972 Talk 18:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is this “opt out of AFC” a rubbish? Any 4-days-old account with ten edits can directly create new pages in the main space. Is actually important whether a Wikipedia article will be created four days later or earlier? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that isn't obvious and as I explained when you do a search on Google or Wiki you get the AFC wizard. Once there you have no option to opt out of it, the way it is setup is to "trap" the user and "deceive" them. If AFC was purely an open option as it claims to be surely it would allow the user to freely use the wizard and at the end present them with 1) Have Article Reviewed or 2) Publish to Wiki. If your argument is if you did that no one would use AFC as I stated above this proves AFC is pointless and serves only one purpose for the AFC group to control what articles are posted. Articles in question should go through go thru the WP:AFD process were a single person isn't deciding if it should remain. Tyros1972 Talk 19:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have some specific suggestions as to what else needs to be said and where, to make it more clear to registered users that the Article wizard and Articles for Creation process are optional, and that at any point they can just ignore it and post an article directly? I agree that it isn't spelled out very clearly. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that users should be able to use the wizard as it guides new editors and at the end have those 2 options. I don't recall in the past that the wizard was controlled by the AFC Group like it is now. All user should be able to use the wizard and at the end have the option for review or to post. Additionally if the article is rejected they should be able to ignore that and directly post it and if other editors have a problem it be submitted through the AFD process. Tyros1972 Talk 19:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So maybe something that states clearly that a rejection is basically just one editor's advisory opinion, and while it shouldn't be ignored, it's not a bar against posting it directly in article space? I agree it's a concern; recently I saw an AFC rejection that was actually contrary to well established (and I thought well known) notability guidelines, by a reviewer that was no more experienced (based on edit count) than the submitter. I don't know how common that kind of thing is, but it should be made clear all through the process that no registered user has to go through it, and can take the end result as just an opinion. postdlf (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you say about the rejection, the user "must" have the option to disagree and post to the community. AFC is bad from it's core, this is a pre-modded system that prevents the community from properly accessing the article. It should be purely an option, even if rejected have the option to post and let us decide not AFC group. Tyros1972 Talk 20:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Any registered user does in fact have that option. You can go ahead and move the page into article space and remove all the AFC stuff even after it has been rejected, provided it was not deleted. The main problem with AFC, in my opinion, is that it has been badly backlogged for a very long time and some reviewers may be being a bit hasty. Resorting to overblown hyperbole is not a way to fix any problems with this process. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why didn't I see it? Why is it so hard to find? Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * AFC is only for brand new editors who may not be aware of notability guidelines and whatever else, any other editor can just modify a non existent page. -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I fail to see the point of "pre-moderating" new editors as we see new articles on a daily basis that are not notable. This should be up to us (the community) not the AFC group. The biggest concern is that one small group is controlling what goes on Wikipedia. If this is how Wiki should be, then we may as well throw out AFD and any of our tags since every article must be approved by the AFC group before it is posted. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, it  is not  necessary  for any  editor reviewing an article or an edit  to  an article to  have subject  knowledge; all that  is required from  them is to  have sufficient  knowledge of policies and guidelines. This does not unfortunately  presuppose that  they  are qualified in  this respect; neither new page patrollers nor AfC Reviewers are vetted for these tasks. The one exception is the Reviewer right for Pending Changes, which is however is accorded on  a low threshold of experience , and is not related to  the creation of new pages.


 * I agree with the comments that the title of this heading is overblown. Articles for Creation is broken, and possibly broken beyond repair, but it does not interfere with article creation by registered users.  The least complicated feasible method of article creation by registered users is to create the article in user space and move it.  (An article can be created directly in mainspace, but it is likely to be tagged for speedy deletion by a deletionist before the creator finishes adding the content and references.  That is why it is better to create the article in user space and move it.)  AFC is broken, but the idea that it threatens Wikipedia is an exaggeration.  It only threatens article creation by users who don't know that it is broken.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Because this obviously effects new users and not experienced, the title is even more so appropriate. Wiki becomes a closed community like a "message forum". New users register and try to create an article and this happens and they leave. Additionally AFC is where it starts, if we don't nip this in the butt it has the potential for the group to gain more and more power to eventually it is standard. As AFC stands now it is a "dangerous idea" and I see it as a very serious threat. You have to look at the BIG picture instead of looking at what it is now. I see AFC as a "bad seed" but at this time it is still just a seed but given time the seed will grow. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, neither AfC nor NPP will physically prevent the creation of articles by Autoconfirmed users.

Thirdly, there is absolutely no  urgency  for the creation of any any  new article.

WP:ACTRIAL was an attempt by  the community  to  address  the problem of the creation  of unwanted pages and significantly  reduce the requirment  for New Page Patrolling, and the AFC process by  limiting  the creation  of new articles to  autoconfirmed users. Although the idea was was supported by a healthy  consensus, and the debate was heavily  subscribed, the idea for a trial  of the proposed process was rejected by  the Foundation because it was thought that  it  would be  contrary  to  Wikimedia ideology  and would ultimately  lose new users. The proposal of ACTRIAL (note trial) was to  find out  if such   claims were justified, and to  demonstrate the main  purpose of the restriction before being  adopted as a new measure.

In the immediate aftermath of the ACTRIAL rejection, the WMF nevertheless offered Article Creation  Workflow as a solution. Wikipedia has never has a proper landing page, and this excellent proposal  by  the Director of Engineering would probably  have addressed all  these issues of page creation. However this development was shelved and archived as being  of low priority, while instead, the Foundation developed and launched the Page Curation  tool which  although  a superb piece of software, is only effective in  the hands of sufficiently experienced users. Hence the core problems persist to this day. For up-to-date discussions, please see this thread and this thread. Maybe all this will help  to  encourage more development  on  the original Article Creation  Workflow as proposed by  the WMF, and ultimately  address  Tyros1972's concerns which  are possibly  echoed by  many. 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)


 * I've tested something at WP:WIZGO to add a button to allow them to create it directly. Right now, it adds unreviewed to it, this can be updated if people wish. Feel free to revert if you all wish. ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I think it'd be nice if someone with better knowledge of templates can a) make sure I didn't break anything too bad, and b) create a new "unreviewed" style template that can be used to add this to a category (say Category:List of articles created directly with the Article Wizard or similar) that'd be great. Just for a test run until we see how this affects the articles being created. ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: That's a good start, obviously I don't object to it. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Every single thing we can do to channel the majority of new users into AfC is a step for the better. The vast majority of articles created by new editors, in my experience having done both vandalism and new page patrol, are simply inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Most new articles are either so malformatted that having them in mainspace is non-functional, or, more often, don't even come close to meeting WP:N. I know that this probably sounds mean, and harsh, but I believe that barriers to article creation is actually a good thing. Our value, as an encyclopedia, rests on the fact that we take the immeasurably vast amount of info available online, in people's heads, in books, etc., and cut it down to the minimum critical information on only notable topics. That, after all, is what encyclopedias have always been for. I know that to many people this sounds antithetical to the idea of an open-sourced encyclopedia...but, after all, our goal is not to be "open to all editors", it's to be "open to all editors here to create an encyclopedia". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Until there is a policy (or guideline) that has site-wide consensus for this drastic change in how we operate (the principle of "registered users may create articles"), I don't feel comfortable supporting it. I think AfC is something everyone should take part in. But it's not your or my determination to make. I'm considering starting an RfC on this to determine the consensus for requiring or "strongly discouraging" not using the article wizard (such as is done for COI editing). At least then there's a policy/guideline basis for not having the button. Right now, there's the button that I added. ~ Charmlet -talk- 02:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion started because User:Tyros1972 read Starting an article, chose one of the three methods listed there, and then was surprised to find that the article was under a review process.  I have looked at this page, and it does indeed give three options for how to create a new article, with instructions for each.  Only one of these three leads to the Afc, and it specifically warns that the article will go through a review process.  Why choose that one if that's not what you want?  Also, as soon as a new user successfully creates one article through Afc, an automated acceptance message is sent telling the user that they can create articles directly and don't need to have them reviewed, and points them to the instructions on how to do this.  There are help message boards all over Wikipedia (including this one, the main help desk, the Teahouse, the Afc help desk).  If User:Tyros1972 or any other autoconfirmed user found his or her article accidentally in Afc when the intention was to create it directly, why not simply ask for help in moving it instead of claiming to be "trapped"?  Why not assume good faith instead of claiming that other editors are out to frustrate you and ruin the encyclopedia? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I chose create the new article and never saw any option to bypass AFC. At the end my only option was to "submit for review", that is why I said I was locked in. This has nothing to do with "assuming good faith" this is about using "common sense", no matter what the idea behind the AFC Review process is, it is dangerous and should be abolished. If it is kept as I stated multiple times, leave it as an "obvious option" for new users who want help. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is the "lock-in", where I would agree with you that you can and should opt-out at any time. Then again, you may end up having your article reviewed anyway and end up going through the AfD process (where I find that almost all new articles with just a few exceptions seem to hit now if they don't go through the AfC process).  I disagree that it should be a bilateral one or the other, and it does reflect poorly on the new article creation process in general, but it is the current state of affairs at Wikipedia.  I've complained about this issue in the past, and have had personal attacks and other stuff happen that makes me just want to even give up entirely on Wikipedia as a result.  The process can be salvaged, but it will take more than the support of just one or two editors to get it to happen.  --Robert Horning (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I had said on my talk page: "Then new users can use it as an option, the way it is set up now a new user cannot go through the wizard and opt out of review at the end, nor do they have the option to disagree with a rejection and post it to us for review. We should have the power NOT the AFC group, that is why we have AFD and our tags. We don;t delete articles that are not notable, we guide new users, post on talk pages and help them. We the Wiki Editors and Community are here to do this not one group. AFC has taken power away from us and we want it back as this is what Wikipedia has always been about." Tyros1972 Talk 22:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Only new or un-registered users are REQUIRED to use AFC or some other mechanism because of technical restrictions. Now, can we improve the AFC process to make it clear to autoconfirmed users that they can bypass this process?  Yes.  Should we?  That's a fair discussion that should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.  I can think of two very good reasons NOT to encourage inexperienced-but-autoconfirmed editors to bypass AFC:  1) it's far better for them, their proposed article, and the project if their proposed article is cleaned up or politely rejected in WP:AFC than for it to go through the discouraging process of WP:AFD, and 2) you don't want to encourage paid/COI-editors using throwaway accounts to bypass AFC unless there is some other mechanism for denying them the "reward" of a mainspace article that search engines will index (AFC submissions are marked "noindex" and few if any major search engines index them). Having said that, we probably should encourage experienced editors to skip AFC. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: While AFC can certainly be improved on in many ways, I disagree that it's a detriment overall. You note that new contributors (and IPs) may be frustrated by semi-arbitrary rulings by un-vetted AFC reviewers, or less-helpful boilerplate AFC templates, but I ask what is the alternative? In a "free and easy" alternative, NoobX submits his article "Awesome New Band" directly after having been auto-confirmed, and excitedly goes on Facebook and forums to let all his friends know the band know has "Wikipedia coverage". A few hours later, NPP pounces on it and CSD's is quite justifiably for having no cites whatsoever. Now EditorX is just as disillusioned as if he was turned down by AFC, and quite possibly more so since there is no "Resubmit" option, there aren't nice clear listings as to which reviewers Delclined him, easy links to remediation sources like AFC Helpdesk and the Teahouse, etc.


 * Without AFC and NPP, Wikipedia would be subsumed with crap: garage bands, bios of your bestest school buddy, "companies" with two employees who made one single Android app, etc. While AFC could always use improvement (and more volunteers), at least it provides a process by which articles can be improved over time and with mentorship. I would strongly support improving AFC process (and I am myself a sometime AFC reviewer), but I would be very much against discouraging use of AFC, and while I recognise that Wikimedia wants to always have an option for people to submit directly, I think we should strongly encourage new users to communicate and interact with the existing community in order to help them get articles successfully published.


 * And as a minor sidenote, I strongly disagree with the implication that AFC is a "cabal" given that it is a purely volunteer endeavor that requires no vetting, election, or even membership. All AFC represents is an opportunity to have other interested people advise you on a draft. Editors can (and sometimes do) either Move of (unfortuntately) copy-paste their drafts into mainspace, though not surprisingly I estimate 95%+ of the time AFC submissions self-submit they end up being Deleted anyway. Let us fix AFC, but let's not act as though Wikipedia suffers from too much peer-oversight rather than not enough. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly blunt here, this is the most insane thing I have ever heard. I am the one who removed the buttons to directly create submissions and mainspace articles, mostly because there were many submissions entering the backlog and mainspace that simply said "Subject of my article is...", which is the preload text from the wizard. The wizard is developed by AfC for new users. It always has been. If you wish to create an article directly in mainspace, search for it on wiki and hit the link to create it. I have absolutely no idea why you believe AfC will ruin Wikipedia and I honestly believe it does the opposite. There are currently 31,948 AfC reviewed pages in mainspace, 596 of which are B-class and above. You aren't roped into the system, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from creating articles in mainspace. You want change, petition the WMF to approve WP:ACTRIAL. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is concerning both MatthewVanitas and Nathan2055 as they both feel AFC has cut down on SPAM. Unfortunately I don't see how AFC has stopped anything you mentioned? To prove my point try using Special:NewPagesFeed and setting the filter for new editors and new articles. AFC has had little to no effect on the daily crap we get, I have submitted TONS of speedy and AFCs for a company with 2 employees that just created an Android app, bands are indeed one of the most common. The point is once again is that AFC Editors should NOT have the final and only say as it has crippled the community. We have our guidelines, tags etc. and we don't need AFC. Tyros1972 Talk 22:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that AFC has failed to cut down on spam because people who aren't using AFC are still submitting spam? I can't tell if you're meaning "submitted TONS of speedys on AFC[-approved articles]" or you're saying that you've submitted tons of speedys on directly-created articles that were spam and you also note that people often submit the same kinds of articles to AFC. All that aside, I'm really not seeing how AFC is some totalitarian system, how it's "crippling" anything, and how it's so much worse than people submitting crap (which lingers for days) and then gets CSD'ed with even less explanation/transparency/remediation than AFC offers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * People will always submit crap to any open source, the only way to cut down on it is to close it for pre-moderation. AFC has the potential to become a politically biased and abusive system. I hate to use an example of US Politics but look at what happen to our rights and gov. spying, with that aside the people have "lost" power and gov. gained it. That is what the danger is with AFC that the group becomes bigger and bigger and eventually things change. The Wiki we had is gone. You have to look at this from the point of view I am. I am NOT saying it is good right now, it is still very bad with locking users in and having a single person review it and no way to bypass that - this is a change I am calling for right now. Tyros1972 Talk 22:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really buy into this slippery slope argument because there's no evidence that AfC is becoming some kind of centralized authority. Sure, editors will make mistakes when reviewing, and this is bound to happen sometimes when reviewers act alone and often when they are inexperienced.  But this is not the same as AfC becoming an overpowering gateway for new editors.  As for your comments about "The Wiki we had was gone," I hate to break it to you, but it sure wasn't any golden age back then, either.  I think you are imagining an idealized past (that an AfC-less past was undoubtedly better) without all the actual problems that went along with it (e.g. Wikipedia likely had more spam that made its way to the mainspace, and fewer editors learned about what reliable sources were / how to use citations / and even a little MoS here and there, because these are often referenced in the AfC process).  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Before OP starts screaming that AFC is the cause of a catestrophic slight against wikipedia that OP familiarize themselves with what AFC does and how we go about it. To use an analogy: If you don't know the right doors to knock on when trying to get into an illegal gambling den and you blunder into a sting operation, your rights are going to be severely curtailed.  If a user starts creating garbage articles in mainspace, their privileges of creation are going to be severely curtailed.  AFC gets it's mandate from a Wikimedia foundation requirement (see WikiProject Articles for creation).  In the perfect world, all AfC submissions would be perfect on the first submission attempt.  In reality, 90% of all AfC submissions are declined at least once.  The Manual of Style has evolved so much that even experienced editors have trouble making sure they pass all the requirements.
 * I also note OP's submisssion of New Media Rights and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/new media rights. The mainspace article already has several "problem templates" on it and appears to have been a "I know better so I'm going to ignore advice from others" submission from the AFC version.  If the OP would have asked questions or attmepted to remedy the issues then the article wouldn't be under notice that it is not sufficent for mainspace.
 * The goal of AfC is to get a submission into such a state that it has a 50% or better chance at surviving a AfD discussion. Personally, I'm very much a hardass in terms of what I'll accept out of the AfC process.  Other reviewers may accept at a lower level, but I try to get at least a 85 to 90% chance at surviving an AfD.  It wastes New Page Patrollers time, it wastes volunteer time to sit down and evaluate the merits of the AfD discussion, and it wastes the time of Admins to evaluate the consensus of the AfD discussion and take action on the submission. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Concerning my article if you had looked you would have seen that it was I who added those tags. My objective was to create a stub and get the article going, AFC prevented that. Additionally everything you stated about how great and wonderful AFC is, that is your opinion as a member and supporter of the group that is fine. As I said sticking to the issues: 1) Users need to bypass AFC and submit it to us so WE have the last say. 2) AFC has failed it's purpose in cutting down on SPAM, as most AFC submissions are by honest users. The SPAMMERs know better. Tyros1972 Talk 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * comment. As both a new page patroller and a content contributor, I'm a big fan of AfC. Writing articles is a lot harder than it was five or six years ago - not only because user expectations of a website have changed, but also because our standards for what content we accept has changed I can point to academic works if anyone wants to debate this Frankly, if I was starting off today I have no idea how long it would take me to be comfortable writing new articles. I have no idea if I'd even survive the process. Whatever AfCs limitations, I consider the fact that we have people willing to help newcomers improve their articles before they release them into the wild and get bitten A Good Thing. It makes my life easier as a content editor, because I have more people who understand how to write good articles. It makes my life easier as a new page patroller, because I have, well, better articles to review. AfC and its maintainers do not deserve our annoyance or anger, they deserve a round of applause. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) No reason to "trick" users and "lock them into the AFC process". 2) AFC should not have the final say, even if rejected the option to disagree and submit to us should be available period. 3) There is simply no evidence whatsoever to support that AFC's "pre moderating" has cut down on crap articles. That's why we have tags and help new editors. All AFC does is give the group power and take it away from us the community. Tyros1972 Talk 23:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where those scare-quotes are coming from, since I've never made those statements - nor do I agree with them. Users aren't tricked, nor are they locked in; people are free to create articles however they want, whatever AfC says. AfC doesn't have the final say, unless I've missed something - what's to stop the creator of a rejected AfC article flinging it straight to mainspace? There isn't any evidence to support the idea that pre-moderating has cut down on crap, it's true. But I haven't seen any evidence from you that it's increased it, or driven users away, or caused any problems. As the person making the assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. And given that AfC contributors can be, well, anyone, AfC and the community can effectively be synonymous. Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the OP has any understanding of AfC whatsoever. Just like NPP (the WE that the OP keeps referring to) AfC is simply a group of editors monitoring article drafts from IPs. In most cases, the only difference is the fact that it's not officially implemented into MediaWiki. I have seen absolutely no evidence to backup the OPs statements and this is getting to the point of being a flame war. Unless the OP can come up with actual facts to prove what he is accusing the project of, I think this section should be closed. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignorance is stopping the "new user" you don't provide this information, that all they need to do is copy and paste into the name space. Why is that? What is AFC afraid of? The user wizard is a very good idea for new users, but the whole pre-moderation is not. Users can test on user space or sandbox, they can get their advice in your IRC channel but AFC having the last say and NOT making an obvious, clear option for "new ignorant" user to do so is outright wrong. The evidence is that a user that has been on Wiki for 3 years and went to create a new article got locked into it. Surely this effect is far greater on a new user this is a no brainer. Attacking me personally and calling me views ignorant does not address the facts and concerns I have presented and not a vaild reason to close this section. Tyros1972 Talk 23:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's rather a strawman argument, again, to claim that AFC has "failed" because spammers still submit to mainspace. First off, there are plenty of spammers who submit to AFC, despite your comments otherwise. Are they stellar-ninja-pro spammers? No, they're just blokes who think they can write up an ad for their window-washing service in small-town North Dakota and post it for the world to see with a glowing recommendation and cell-phone number. It goes to AFC, we can tag it properly and delete it before it enters article-space.
 * Also, you haven't rebutted the statement that AfC prevents turning off some users, in that it is somewhat less bitey than a CSD from NPP. There will always be some number of hurt feelings from people who can't stand one AfC decline, people who are writing poor articles about their boss or deceased uncle and are crushed we don't accept it, or decent folks who unfortunately just have a lot of trouble with getting an article together and get frustrated. But again, how are those folks going to be less upset when they "successfully" submit just to mainspace, only to have their article tagged to pieces and eventually deleted with no clear remediation? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your platform. Comment on content, not contributors. Also, you were never locked into AfC. Just go create it in mainspace. The thing about stuffing mainspace creation in front of new users faces is that in AfC you get comments and help on your article. In mainspace you get issued a deletion notice. New users will obviously go for what gets their article in front of people faster, but that won't make them contributors. I was a host at the Teahouse during it's pilot phases, I deal with new user's comment son my talk every time I do any reviewing. I understand editor retention, and AfC has always given better results than NPP. Finally, you still haven't provided proof that anybody other than you is having these problems. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is you who has failed to address any of the issues I have mentioned. Why must users who use the wizard have no option to disagree and post to wiki? Why does the AFC group feel that their pre-moderation some how contributes to SPAM? As for evidence anyone can go look at the frustration and concern about getting their articles rejected (perhaps for biased reasons) and not know they can bypass it. You have failed to address the issues I have pointed out and asked for IF AFC is kept. Give the users the ability to use the wizard but do make it an open option and the ability to disagree IF rejected and post it to the community. Tyros1972 Talk 01:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Matthew: You say "It goes to AFC, we can tag it properly and delete it before it enters article-space." That's wrong, and it's wrong in an important way.  We generally tag articles like that, publish the tagged version as a declined AfC draft, and keep it forever, allowing it to be mirrored and valuable as a spamvertisement forever more.  G13 has proven ineffective at making a dent in this.  At some point, it would be better to simply give up on AfC if we're going to continue to permit this giant loophole for spammers. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've said a lot about AfC from time to time, which I will summarize in one sentence: The insoluble problem with AfC is that the WP crowd sourcing method requires participation by multiple people to improve an article, but having just one random person give advice can  work only when there's a very high probability that single person will be an expert, which is not the case at WP.  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That is one of the best arguments I have heard. Very well stated DGG. Tyros1972 Talk 00:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:AFC is one of the best things we have here, if you don't like it, then fine, that's your choice and we can't do nothing about that.. But are you aware that we don't need AFC to create an article, rather create on manually and directly without the whole precess thing. Prabash.  Akmeemana   11:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think you read this discussion as I don't like to keep repeating myself, but as I said it is NOT obvious to users about using the name space. Also I fail to see why users are not permitted to use the wizard, and if rejected disagree and post it to Wiki. That is what I am asking for IF AFC must be kept as I think it is completely useless. Tyros1972 Talk 00:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"In the search box near the top right of a page, type the title of the new article, then click Go. If the Search page reports 'There were no results matching the query. You may create the page....' followed by the article name in red, then you can click the red article name to start editing it. When you are done, press 'Show preview' to take a look at how the page will appear. Try to fix any formatting errors, then press 'Save page'. Your article is now part of Wikipedia and may be edited by anyone."
 * Comment WP:Starting an article seems to be pretty clear about how to go about creating your own article. You said in your original statement that the article only gave you three options: Wizard, User Page or Sandbox. Well, I found this directly under the "How to create a page" section:
 * It's clear that no review process takes place using this method. In regards to the Article Wizard, you said it's unclear about the namespace option but I don't see that. Under the "End" tab, it gives you the option to take it to AfC ("Create new article draft") or create it directly ("Create a new article directly"). Now, if you're arguing that WP:Starting an article doesn't make it clear that by using the Wizard you can submit an article directly to the namespace then I would agree with you because it states: "Create the article using the ‪Wikipedia:Article wizard‬. Your article will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'". It doesn't mention the namespace option which should be changed. Otherwise, I really don't see where the confusion is. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 03:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The second button at the "End" tab has been created two days ago after Tyros1972's comment, so he was right that the article wizard didn't provide the option to bypass the review process. The new button is an improvement; and I agree that a similar one (with a reminder about speedy deletion) should be added to the "Submission declined" template to allow new editors to bypass the review, given that abiding to it is not a requirement by policy. Let's keep our users informed on their rights, it's the ethical thing to do. Diego (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not looked into this but will when I get time, but that sounds like a step in the right direction. That is one of my main concerns about this, as you stated about "keeping ALL users informed of their rights" and that is what I failed to see. Instead I only saw the AFC group using deceit and locking the user into this "monarch" review process. If someone wants this and feels they need a possible "biased" opinion by a single person that's fine, but the issue is as DGG said best - you don't have the same input as AFD's have, you have 1 person deciding and that is outright dangerous. This is what is unfair about this who setup. Tyros1972 Talk 02:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a semi-regular at AfC, and am most active on the help desk. I've discussed problems with AfC recently on WT:WER - some of them are technical, some are social. However, to summarise to the specific incident here, I would like to make the following comments:
 * In the case of the actual submission - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/new media rights, I saw in-depth coverage in four sources, but was concerned two seemed to resemble press releases. Based on this, I thought the company's notability as presented in the source was tenuous and felt it could go either way at AfD unless I could find more sources. Given I'm not an expert on this topic, it becomes pretty easy for me to skip over this submission and leave it to somebody else. However, the younger and less experienced reviewers don't necessarily go through all this mental thought. When you consider the submission doesn't look that different (at least superficially) from a typical spamvertisment, it's not hard to see why somebody might decline it.
 * I'm still not quite sure what Tyros1972's proposed change to the wizard procedure is. Is it simply the ability to skip the review and go straight to namespace. Sure, there's no reason you can't create stuff in mainspace, and I can tell you in the vast majority of submissions I reviewed, those articles would go straight to CSD, maybe AfD if you're lucky. You can then watch editor retention plummet like a stone as would-be editors say "hey, I created this article yesterday, where's it gone?", scratching their heads. AfD is newbie hostile, and anyone who thinks otherwise just has a thick skin from having been here long enough.
 * Despite DGG's comment above, I would say the criteria for passing an article at AfC is quite simple - "Would you vote keep if this article turned up at AfD?" There are some special cases beyond the general guidelines, WP:NMUSIC and WP:NPROF being ones I am most familiar with, but they're not hard to grasp, if you hang out at AfD often enough.
 * As stated on the WER thread, one of the key problems stems from new and inexperienced reviewers being quicker to accept or decline than more experienced hands. I suggested a possible fix is to make AfC reviewing a right at Requests for permissions, so you would not be allowed to review articles without a good understanding of our notability and verifiability.
 * I don't particularly like canned responses with reviewing. Again, in the case of New Media Rights, I think a comment explaining the problem with the specific sources would be better received. You wouldn't start an AfD with a preloaded canned response, would you? I think we need to encourage more use of the "custom" decline box and reviewer comments, that explain specific problems to specific articles.
 * Although I have my own criticisms of AfC, some of which I mentioned above, I think Tyros1972's anger at the system not doing what he expected have clouded his judgement a bit, and suggest he calms down and takes a deep breath, and chalks this one up as a bad experience. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ritchie333. Updating the article wizard to allow users to bypass the review process and even potentially allowing users to bypass declines would be great ideas. I'll look into trying to implement them later today. But, to the OP, I still believe he may have over thought this one. Let's calm down, move this over to WT:AFC, and start prototyping ways to make this better. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That will satisfy me personally, again I am not happy on AFC Review Process at all - but if it is kept then this will work fine. I don't see any problems with adding a possible warning about speedy delete etc. I think that's fair as well. To quickly comment on Ritchie333 the rejection of my stub is not an issue here and you said it best when you admitted you are not an expert on the subject. This is the concern I have, I should state I have been a little "hard" on the good intentions of the AFC Group, it is just the concern of the possible abuses that it can have (i.e. not all members are honest or fair) and if anyone brings up the "assume good faith" that isn't talking about common sense, I believe that is talking about editors. Tyros1972 Talk 02:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as a footnote, the user who declined your AfC submission, has been indeffed for sockpuppetry, so I really think you just got a bad apple on this one. An RFC has been opened, and I would like to propose that reviewing becomes a requestable right that requires a level of competence.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   08:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is evidence right there proving the danger and abuse of AFC, what more can you get? To assume all AFC members are honest and not bias is outright foolish. This is just 1 bad apple but the potential for abuse goes well beyond that. The only way to fix it is give user the option to post directly to wiki skipping the review, if they wish to submit and it is rejected to once again disagree and post. Otherwise it is dangerous and can ruin what wiki is. No one but the community should have the final say on if an article is notable that's why we have AFD. Tyros1972 Talk 00:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with DGG but I'd also add that AFC is a much harsher environment for article creators because a lone person can decline on much more deletionist grounds than via speedy deletion. Some AFC declines appear to me to be on the basis that one person thinks that an article would probably be deleted at AFD - some articles get declined simply for being unsourced even if they are not BLPs. If the same articles had gone straight into mainspace then unsourced BLPs would get a sticky prod, but otherwise simply being unsourced is not a deletion criteria. My preference would be that we simplify our processes and feed AFC articles into mainspace - but make them all no index till they are patrolled. Then define the unpatrolled ones as some sort of draft article status that have not yet been accepted into the pedia. That way you please both sides - you rise the minimum standard of what we accept into the pedia and get a better, politer and more accurate process for new submissons.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was considering making a comment about a single editor deciding that something does not belong, but you covered that. I have seen thousands of articles in the area of buildings by going through and adding categories.  While a small percentage, the number of unreferenced single sentence articles is noticeable.  I have tended to not nominate these for deletion since most hospitals, lighthouses and so on are likely to be notable.  Many of these could be tagged for deletion and would probably survive, yea, DGG may be surprised that I don't nominate the lot.  But these made it into the main namespace and are not being deleted.  So why are we preventing articles that are better written and sourced from getting into the main name space? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Another change AFC needs in addition to what we discussed, is a the backlog for unreviewed articles should NOT sit there forever until someone gets around to it. If an article remains in queue for 7 days it should go back to the author to decide to resubmit or to post it. The advantage to this is priority and that AFC members need to keep up with their backlog and not just ignore it. If the work becomes overwhelming as I said get rid of the whole process altogether. I won't specify that i think 7 days is best limit, I am open to whatever works but it should be forever the way it is now. Tyros1972 Talk 00:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria for rejection on notability ground (or others) should not be that the reviewer thinks it doesn't qualify, since it's way too subjective, it should instead be that the reviewer think that it would be uncontroversially deleted at AFD on such grounds, which is already much more objective. Opinions are way too divergent at AFD, setting the bar higher or fully relying on the reviewer's discretion isn't proper in a process where only one user makes the call (same reasoning as for CSD and prod). Cenarium (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Dipping back into this soapbox fest I'll answer a few questions: I encourage all editors who want to disarm AfC to take a walk in the shoes of a AfC patroller before they make any further disarming suggestions. Hasteur (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) If the submiter makes a concerted effort to remedy the issues raised with the previous review, it's an unwritten rule that a different reviewer gets to review it. If the submitter re-submits with trivial changes that do not address the issue, the same reviewer is able to re-decline the submission
 * 2) Individual reviewers reputations are on the line, so some reviewers demand a lot from submissions before they will accept a article into mainspace.
 * 3) Auto-promoting submissions out of AfC space into mainspace is a non-starter. If that were to occur then all that would need to occur is for an IP to wait and then by default, get a bad article into mainspace, effectively neutering any purpose for AfC.  There have been cases where AfC was up to 3~4 weeks in backlog of reviews.  We try to work the backlog according to age. Currently there's no backlog because of a backlog elimination drive.
 * 4) We give submitters plenty of time to make attempts to improve a potential article before we read the CSD:G13 rights over it. Currently I'm working on a backlog back to November of 2008 and cleaning out submissions that were edited well out side the 6 months period. If a drive by IP or editor randomly tosses something at the wall, how long are we supposed to look at it before we can clean it off the wall?
 * 5) The criteria I tend to use looks at all the potential reasons why a submission might be put up for AfD. 90% of the submissions would never pass muster at deletion discussions, yet we're being encouraged to create more work for New Page Patrollers, and contributers at AfD.
 * That's a very nice promotion but fails to address ANY of the concerns and abuses. Additionally you are getting into "rankings now" what is this a web forum, with various levels? if anything should show the bad intentions of AFC it is total power hungry statments like proposed by Hasteur. Obviously his basis is "let AFC control everything and have various ranks of power etc.". My artcle was rejected by someone who was banned for socketing, that is 1 example of the abuse and danger this proposes. Wiki was never started to give a certain group "control" and "power" and various rankings to what articles are allowed on wiki by using "speedy deletion" and other scare tactics, remember we have tags and don't delete articles just because they aren't "perfect". AFD is wiki that is a fact however flawed it maybe, AFC is not it is a group trying to control articles on wiki. Tyros1972 Talk 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I just had a quick look at the AFC wizard, the only thing changed is an option for experienced editors to bypass into the search box. I don't see how this helps much? AFC still has their full power, no option to "reject" an article as I have tested with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/test07113 only a "resubmit" etc. Tyros1972 Talk 12:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Endorse the comments of Tyros1972. The title Articles for Creation seems quite Orwellian in that the process is about preventing creation rather than facilitating it.  It should be retitled Articles for Rejection to better describe what happens there. Warden (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Warden, it's nice to see people with common sense.


 * I have to agree with Hasteur's comments. I think you've made your point loud and clear Tyros1972 - you hate AfC. We get that. Please don't accuse other editors of being "power mad" - there's nothing stopping you from accepting or rejecting AfC submissions as well, is there? You can either help us fix AfC so it sucks less, or you can carry on shouting about how awful it is, but I fear the more you do, the less people will listen. I think you'll just have to come to terms that not everyone is in 100% agreement with your viewpoint, I'm afraid. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentThat's not all true, I like AFC and like to see it remain but unless you can allow users to disagree and post freely, I would rather see it gone. The wizard is a wonderful piece of software, but it is so crippled that if anyone uses it they are NOT allow to bypass review. Also AFC's rules and standards greatly vary from wiki, there is only 1 admin making the decisions etc. Simply having the options as I suggested would make it perfect, an "option based on wanting help" not an "option based on deceit and locking users in". Don't say I am not contributing to AFC, I have told you how to fix it since it is broke and you are refusing to change. You are running it like a private old bbs or message forum, which is fine if it wasn't wiki related! Tyros1972 Talk 09:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear editors: As a regular contributor at Afc, over the past three weeks I have reviewed about 180 articles and made improvements to about 30 more that were reviewed by others. Of these there were 2 hoaxes, 3 tests, 4 redundant, 4 not in English, 3 POV, 2 very confusing, 10 blank, 16 spam and 19 copyright violations (These 19 were deleted for legal reasons, not at the whim of the Afc).
 * Of the remaining, over half were people writing about themselves or their own books, bands, businesses, movies, etc. That's okay in the Afc, though, because we make sure that the articles are toned down and the references independent even though it sometimes takes a fair amount of convincing before they give up calling themselves “amazing” and “world famous”. I declined about 50 of these as “not demonstrating notability” and left an individual message for each to distinguish between those that really did not meet the guidelines and those who just needed to show it in the text and references.
 * I declined another 40 or so as “improperly sourced”. About half of these had no sources or just a link to the company or band web site. I left an individual message for each of these explaining what kind of references were needed.
 * On any of the above articles that I thought had a chance of ever being in mainspace I spent some time straightening paragraphs, adding reflists, creating appropriate sections, etc.
 * I accepted 15 articles and six others that I improved were then accepted by other reviewers. Only two of these were ready for mainspace before I or other Afc editors fixed them up. These articles were NOT required to be perfect, only to pass minimum Wikipedia policies of notability, not copyvio, independent sources, not spam, etc. You should read the complaints we get if someone sends an article out without these minimums!
 * Aside from two days in a tent at a bluegrass festival with no internet access, I have worked for several hours every day this month doing this and after all of this work I am disheartened and indignant to read that a number of editors feel that I am power hungry and am helping to ruin the encyclopedia. It is especially irksome to be told this by an editor who:
 * arrived at Afc, which is intended for brand new users or those wanting a review, accidentally through misreading instructions
 * had his article declined as needing more independent sources (nonprofit organization's own web site, one interview with the founder, one press release, and a link to the site of a company whose business is publicizing nonprofits)
 * received two notices inviting him to the project help page and the teahouse if he had any problem
 * chose not to go to one of these help pages and ask “ My article seems to be in the Afc, but I don't want a review. How do I move my article?”, as any autoconfirmed user could do
 * chose not to assume good faith and start a reasonable discussion about whether page creation or Afc instructions need clarification
 * chose instead to go on a rant accusing a whole group of hard working editors of ruining the encyclopedia, and keep it up for two weeks, still using inflammatory language today.
 * Now I will go back to trying help new users improve their articles so that they won't be deleted when they hit mainspace and stop feeding this discussion. If there's any kind of consensus that effects my work, somebody let me know.... &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Anne, your work and dedication at AfC is exemplary, let's be quite clear about  that. I don't even 'work'  at  AfC, but  I  do make 100s  of the physical deletions when required, so  I'm  well  aware of what  goes on. Wikipedia maintenance areas are a magnet to  new, young, and/or inexperienced editors -  that's the immediate problem and the one around which  some consensus appears to  be forming. Other than that, this thread appears to be going nowhere, and I  suggest  that  the experienced core AfC participants launch  an RfC to  introduce some minimum  thresholds of competency  for reviewing  pages. There has recently been some serious abuse of the AfC system, and other reviewers are now being  called to  account on  admin  noticeboards for their quality of reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Where to go from here?
First, I will repeat my original statement that the title of this section by the OP is a wild exaggeration. Articles for Creation has problems. However, it doesn't prevent the creation of articles in user space, which is the usual approach taken by many experienced editors. I see two parallel paths from here. The first is changes to how Articles for Creation work, such as discouraging new editors from reviewing Articles for Creation. The second is an RFC concerning the extent to which to push editors into using Articles for Creation or to push editors into editing in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I will repeat mine, the title is very serious as it is harming wiki and the more power AFC gains the more damage it will create. AFC and Wiki have 2 totally different standards, this should not be. AFC is based on a single reviewer, wiki is not. The main fact you trick users into using it and never let them disagree and post etc. AFC is broke and it needs to be fixed or removed. Tyros1972 Talk 09:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we're going round in circles, but I'll summarise where I'm going:
 * I've contributed to an RFC to reform the AfC process
 * I've overturned quite a few declined AfC submissions where I don't agree with the decision
 * I've hauled a reviewer whose quality is perceived to be problematic up to ANI for a potential, and unpleasant, banning
 * I continue to hang out on the help desk and answer questions about submissions - the vast majority of which are "Why was my article declined?"

I think in any reasonable terms that I could be described as "doing something about it." The only other thing I would add is maybe making the links to the Help Desk or the Reviewer's talk page more obvious, ideally with equal prominence to the "Resubmit" button. If your submission is rejected, you should find it quick and easy to get help.

As far as this discussion goes, it looks like it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass all round, to be frank. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, where to  go  from  here is quite clear. When I co-initiated the massive campaign  to  clean up  NPP a couple of years ago (that was why the WMF gave us the Curation  tool) I  had no  idea how much  worse AfC is. What I  have learned about  it  over the last  few weeks has made my  hair stand on  end. Allowing all  these youngsters and totally inexperienced users (and it's a fair guess that  some of them  are not  even native speakers) to  mess with  something  as delicate as reviewing  submitted articles is sheer insanity especially  when PC Reviewers and Rollbackers need a special  user right. Of course, the AfC project is partly to  blame through  its own  aggressive campaigning  for reviewers, and now something has to  be done. First steps are a thorough  vetting  of all  the users who  are regularly  involved in  the process and rather than taking  on  the monumental  task  of trying  to  train  them, show the under-performers the door like Ritchie and Hasteur have been doing  when I've brought  some issues to  light. Next step  is to  get  a task-force together to  craft  up some minimum  criteria for experience and then apply  them  rigorously, and then clone the new WP:CVUA school  I  made into  a similar version  for AfC reviewers. It's a bit late for me to  do  anything  about  AfC  at  Wikimania in  just  over a week's time (although I  haven't  taken a close look  at  the programme yet), but  if I do  get  a chance, I'll  certainly  speak  about  it as loudly  as possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 23 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)

Further to this... overseas publishing actually doesnt count at all
Looking into this further, these files are all counted as unpublished by US copyright law even if they were published overseas (unless they were published by a US citizen). Meaning vast swathes of these files are copyvios, likely the great majority. I could grab an image from 1894 that was published (say in a newspaper or a book), and it would be copyrighted in the US. -- Nbound (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I follow... an image from 1894 would not be copyrighted.Camelbinky (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are considered "not published in the US", not as "never published"; the law distinguishes between these two cases. Barring a few special cases, material published outside the US before 1923 and never published within the US is in the public domain. Material never published anywhere is life+70 or creation+120. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking into this Ive found that apparently foreign national has a different meaning in the US that the rest of the world, skewing my interpretation of the chart! -- Nbound (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Plot Summary" (redux)
Long and oft-discussed topic I know, but honestly, people, this article does not present a plot ""summary"", it presents **the entire narrative**.

Can we please do something properly about articles where "plot summary" means "breathless retelling of the entire story in the style of an eight-year-old girl"? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, I'd simply remove the section: plot summaries aren't an important part of an article. Your example is nothing compared to this.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy rambling plot summary batman (abut Kww's other example).--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on accepting a partisan site as a newsblog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_ThinkProgress --Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding the titles of articles about queens
There is a request for comment regarding the titles of articles about living queens. Should articles about them be titled according to the format "Queen Mathilde of Belgium" while the articles about kings are titled according to the format "Philippe of Belgium"? Should articles about the wives of kings be titled according to the format "Queen Sonja of Norway" while the articles about female monarchs are titled according to the format "Juliana of the Netherlands"? This involves changing the WP:CONSORTS guideline.

I started the RfC mainly in order to get opinions of uninvoled users, i.e. those who do not normally edit royalty-related articles. Surtsicna (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

PROPOSAL related to NPOV;  Deleting "dormancy" as a reason for tag removal
SUBJECT
 * Instructions for removing a POV tag

CURRENT STATUS
 * Currently, there are three occasions when it is recommended to remove this template: when -
 * 1 No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
 * 2 Discussion about neutrality issues is dormant.
 * 3 There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved.

PROPOSAL:
 * Drop #2 (dormancy) as a reason for tag removal.
 * (To avoid confusion, please note I am opposed)

BACKGROUND:
 * With different wording, Dormancy was added to the template instructions in late 2010. It has been a part of these instructions for 2 1/2 years.

RESULT IF APPROVED:
 * As I understand it, an ed wishing to remove a tag after conversation has long been dormant will be obliged to first assess the article for POV issues; if no one is willing to do that, the tag would have to remain despite the dormant conversation.

LOCATION OF DISCUSSION
 * Please join the discussion at the template instruction talk page.
 * Please join the discussion at the template instruction talk page.
 * Please join the discussion at the template instruction talk page.
 * Please join the discussion at the template instruction talk page.


 * Repetition intentional, to hopefully forestall starting a 2nd competing thread here.

Thanks for your interest NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Before posting a reply here, please be sure to read the last section of the opening post above. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One minor correction: it isn't really "recommended to remove this template" when there has been no discussion about alleged POV problems for a long time; it is only "permitted", and you may or may not choose to do so, depending on your judgment of the situation.
 * And I'll repeat that handy link to the discussion at template instruction talk page, since NewsAndEventGuy was so kind as to provide it in a way that made me smile. A single conversation in a single place is so much easier to understand.  Please come.  This is actually a friendly conversation that anyone is welcome to join and express an opinion on.  We actually do want to know what you think should be done with old POV tags that nobody has discussed for years.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF intends for Only VisualEditor to be usable on Talk pages.
Just a quick update: It would seem Jorm was acting on his own here, though no explanation has yet appeared as to why he was allowed to make statements about VE being the only editor for use in Flow, repeatedly and consistently up to the time the scandal broke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor&diff=prev&oldid=564282164

What. The. Fuck.

Was anyone consulted on this? What if you want to quote text from the article on the talk page? Or wanted to use templates?

Not to mention how many bots will need recoded. Goodbye auto-archiving bots. Goodbye the bot that handles Good article promotions.

Goodbye to this noticeboard having the same format used for discussions elsewhere.

Is the WMF insane? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you read the information about Flow, you will discover that most of this is wrong. Jorm has designed header space to permit templates (e.g., WikiProject banners) and other templates at the top of the page.  Flow has its own built-in "archiving" system, so auto-archiving bots will simply be obsolete.  The GA bot can be replaced by a Flow-based workflow, or it can edit the header space at the top of the page.  Noticeboards will be capable of having the same format as all the other discussions (although those of you who hate scrolling through a dozen screenfuls in search of a couple of new comments will probably appreciate the option to collapse read messages, so that only the new ones will take up much space on your screen).  The discussions will also be able to use more complex workflows, such as automatically knowing when the AFD is supposed to get closed.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as it is at least as quick as the non-VE environment, I can live with the clarification above. Right now, it is like molasses and I dread to think what it does for people in developing nations who have poor connections and/or people using mobile. Needless to say, I've turned it off for now. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The question remains, will it support full-featured wikitext, with inline templates, images, image galleries and the rest? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is as slow as VE, I don't want it. I'd rather not edit talk pages. I'm on a pisspoor connection half the time, and anything that makes loading even slower essentially has the effect of making editing unbearable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Re the comment above, I concur. I've only not succeeded in avoiding being shunted into VE a few times, but I did not enjoy those few slow and painful VE editing experiences. I've made 55,000+ edits on WP, all but a tiny percentage of which were done from locations in the Philippines which are remote from international gateways and using connections which would be considered pisspoor by the standards of those who are accustomed to high-BW near-backbone access. WMF developers and policymakers (not only WM -- the entire IT industry) ought to be forced to use artificially BW-limited connections before deciding what to force on others who must use such connections. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I was just reading about the Chromebook Pixel... a nightmare... that would not be practical in Indonesia, at all. Let's not make the gap between "first world" and "third world" country representation in Wikipedia even worse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be a bit of a sidestep, Whatamidoing. Supporting templates in a talk page header at the top is not remotely equivalent to supporting templates in messages directly. There's also the fact that we were told that the standard method of editing would not be disabled, and this brings the veracity of that statement into question. I don't want to use the Visual Editor. That's why I disable it. That shouldn't mean that I can't discuss things with other editors. The main header seems to be quite accurate: Jorm does not intend for us to be able to create messages as Wikitext. That's unacceptable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Look - one thing we know for sure is that Flow needs to be designed with the VisualEditor and HTML5 first and foremost in mind. We can't design it around all the legacy assumptions and affordances of wikitext. That doesn't mean that some kind of source or markup mode is necessarily impossible, but it may be different "under the hood" than wikitext as we know it. We definitely want to make sure that you can continue to post to Flow boards with older browsers, and since VisualEditor doesn't support them, we'll likely have to provide a fallback mode.
 * As for templates, one of the goals of Flow is to offer a more user-friendly method than ing templates into talk pages for leaving standard messages or enabling more complex workflows. That doesn't mean that templates within a Flow message will necessarily be unavailable (clearly some support for templates will be required), but we want to make sure that we can offer intuitive interfaces for the most common and most important tasks without forcing users to manually find the right templates.
 * Flow is still in the prototyping stage, and we're continuing to analyze these use cases. As we do so, some requirements will increase in priority and others will be dropped. But Flow will representa big and dramatic shift from talk pages as we know them, and we want to make sure that we let users know early that change is coming.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Arguably the worst problem with current talk pages is dealing with edit conflicts. If the new editor isn't going to fix this, why bother? If dealing with edit conflicts will be harder, the new editor is a non-starter. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit conflicts in Flow won't be a problem. That's not a function of the editor, however; it's an artifact of how the Flow board gets constructed.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be listening, Jorm. Your highest priority should be to be fully compatible with both VE and raw wikitext editing. Visual Editor is not generally recognized as an improvement, and will never be universally recognized as an improvement. I disable it. I doubt that I will ever enable them except for debugging user problems. I don't want VE buttons. When I disable VE, I intend to disable VE for all functions universally, including discussion. I expect you to honour that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, Jorm. "Legacy assumptions and affordances of wikitext"... You're not helping your position here. That's possibly the worst thing you could have said. Judging from how you've characterized this, and from how the VE debacle has gone, if the Foundation is trying to alienate existing users and cripple current Wikipedia functionality, then it's on the right track. Offer new things as options. Don't pull the rug out from everyone already working here, and don't take away the features that editors are already capable of using. That would not be an improvement by any rational standard. postdlf (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, Flow should be designed with consideration of the functional requirements and usability needs of present users and potential new users. Those requirements are many and vary across a wide array usage patterns and experience levels.  Once we decide what it needs to be able to do, then we can discuss about what technology should be used, and whether it should leverage new technology (e.g. VE), old technology (e.g. wikitext), or a combination of the two.  The application should lead to the choice of technology, rather than the technology defining the application.  Dragons flight (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with that. However, minimal functional requirements include the ability to copy sections between articles and Flow messages (including sections with formulas and templates), the ability to edit such on the Flow side, and that the rendering should be the same in articles and in Flow messages.  I don't see Jorm considering that as even desirable, while most of us think it is a requirement.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, he's development staff, right? An employee, not a spokesperson or board member, so it isn't clear how his goals or set or if he's just running unsupervised under some broad directive or misspeaking. Who does he report to? There needs to be some kind of WP community resolution directed to the Foundation board or some formal channel of communication set up so we're not just shouting at each other about how all of these software changes seem to be made without any regard for current functionality or the concerns of the community. postdlf (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely opposed to this and wish that WMF would quit screwing around with the interface as if they were MS Word. Bad behavior is the core of every problem Wikipedia has, and a "better" interface isn't going to fix any of those. And never mind that at least for me the new interface is worse. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jorm, will you please make a binding commitment to this community, here, that activities like the following will remain possible in user talk space:
 * Creating a mock-up of a paragraph of an article, in order to discuss an intended edit, by copying over material from an article, and keeping it editable for participants in the discussion;
 * Creating a mock-up of an infobox or a table in a similar way;
 * Creating and discussing a list of references, by copying the " " items out from an article and creating an ad-hoc 01:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that Doc James meant to say something like "secondary sources, such as review articles". If necessary, we can WP:TROUT him later for not providing a complete overview of the main points of the policies and guidelines he linked for you.
 * Sources are not required to be neutral. Only Wikipedia articles are.
 * Authors are not required to be free of any conflicts of interest.
 * If you want to get outside opinions, try WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral. Cancer, especially Cancer and Dietary is not neutral.  Instead, there is an emphasis on heredity (genetic) and medical interventions; which is specifically downplayed by the best (ACS 2012) review.


 * Is it logical that there is a 100x difference in cancer rates by region (migration and epidemiology research) that strongly correlate to diet and other lifestyle (in that order) factors, yet Wikipedia made it heredity (before I spend many hours fighting form small changes)? Note Jmh649's removal of "only" 5 - 10% heredity, which was the gist of the ACS review statement.


 * I propose a Wikipedia policy for source (review) references that strongly guides editors to utilize only the best (largest set of underlying research studies, most neutral contributors, most comprehensive review on a subject). Good reviews take into account all the relevant research studies.


 * I propose a arbitration body within Wikipedia to decide on best reviews.32cllou (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a ref for the "100x difference in cancer rates by region"
 * I added "5 - 10% are heredity" You tried to add editorial overtones of "only". Is 5-10% big or small? We can leave that up to our readers to decide. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Elections in dependent territories
On which page should elections in dependent territories be listed, pages for national elections (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) or pages for local elections (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)? There seems to be some confusion at the moment, for example Guam's gubernatorial election of 2010 appears in the National electoral calendar, but Puerto Rico's gubernatorial election of 2012 appears in the Local electoral calendar. Also, the Turks and Caicos Islands elections are listed in Local electoral calendar, but the Falklands and Gibraltar elections are in the National electoral calendar. Thanks. --Philip Stevens (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is dependent territories should be put into Local, to avoid there being any tangential arguments over what is meant by "National". doktorb wordsdeeds 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed policy to utilize the best review / Arbitration body, 100x rates of cancer death
To consolidated and copied from above "Jmh649 and Wikipedia neutrality, and reference policy guidelines"

I propose a Wikipedia policy for source (review) references that strongly guides editors to utilize the best (largest set of underlying research studies, most current set of underlying research studies, most neutral contributors, most contributors, neutral financial backing, best authors and contributors, most comprehensive review on a subject) where there is disagreement among editors. Good reviews take into account all the relevant research studies; the weight of the evidence should be emphasized. Consensus should not be a tool for gang manipulation away from truth.

Please see Cancer Talk from here and below []

It is not fair for editors to fight so long for small obvious changes! We have better projects pending.

I propose a arbitration body within Wikipedia to decide on best reviews.32cllou (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a ref for the "100x difference in cancer rates by region"
 * I added "5 - 10% are heredity" You tried to add editorial overtones of "only". Is 5-10% big or small? We can leave that up to our readers to decide. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You won't let Wikipedia make that 100x statement, so I won't go back and find the supporting epidemiology study. It was not a review, as you require of edits intermittently for unknown reasons.  If you state here that you will allow that quote, I'll go find the findings reference.


 * The American Cancer Society reference said "Only approximately 5 - 10%" is heredity, and that was one of that paragraph main points; as currently the case in in Wikipedia, there is an overemphasis on genetics as a cause of cancer death. Why do you seek to enforce that false overemphasis?


 * Jmh649, why do you seek to make Wikipedia say eating fish will reduce the risk of cancer? (using this, I believe low quality possible biased review []  Please see this Cancer Talk discussion of the problems with that review []32cllou (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor/Default State RFC
There's a request to advertise VisualEditor/Default State RFC at the watchlist at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. Participation in either or both discussions is appreciated.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing articles here for payment on Elance
As someone who's also happened to join Elance since two weeks ago, I have one concern to bring up.

Some minutes ago, I spotted a project listing in which a client from Thailand's offering US$50 to proofread an article here. Recommends that I have an established track record on WP (been here for 8½ years--10,000+ edits), and requires that I disclose my user ID in my bidding proposal.

For that, I really don't want to risk my reputation here, nor lose my just-opened account over at Elance. I see that the service has been mentioned at least once around the Pump, and concerns about paid editing of any sort have been raised in a failed policy and guideline. Also brought up in an early 2011 thread at Wikipedia Review.

Folks, what's the best I should do? Should I take a dare--or pass it up? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know the policies. I think that it's great that someone wants you to fix an article. The issue is tampering with neutrality, and I think that proofreading doesn't involve that. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing you could do is proofread the article (and clean up any problems)... and then turn down any payment. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If they didn't tell you what its about yet, its probably a paid advertisement of some sort. You'll probably be asked, besides proof reading to also help with a POV or WP:Puffery article. Sometimes, although rarely, they show their real intentions by mistake. Don't go for such jobs, if they steal and clone and exploit, don't expect to get a fair rating from them unless you comply with their way of doing things. I say: Steer away from such a project, whether there is a policy for proof reading or not. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of no legal threats policy
I have posted a proposal to clarify the scope of the no legal threats policy. I would be grateful for feedback and comments on this. Prioryman (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

addressing a similar issue at two articles
Is there a way to address what one sees as a similar problem found at two different articles, other than addressing them separately? Let me explain. At Whaam! and at Drowning Girl I find material which I feel is outside of the scope of those articles. There are quite a few articles on Roy Lichtenstein paintings but only these two articles display this problem. I'm going to take the liberty of posting the material I find problematic:

At "Whaam!":

"Whaam!" 1. ) "Lichtenstein has drawn criticism for not giving credit or compensation to the artists from whose works the painting's composition was derived. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted as high art."

"Whaam!" 2. ) "Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders."

At "Drowning Girl":

"Drowning Girl" 1. ) "Ever since he began creating comic-based artwork, others have complained that Lichtenstein did not give credit or compensation to the comic book artists."

"Drowning Girl" 2. ) "Although his work is now widely-accepted, there remain critics who continue to raise issues about it such as the claim that every comic-based work was done without attributing the original creators, nor paying any royalties or seeking permission from the original copyright holders."

None of the above assertions are specific to the two paintings that the two articles are ostensibly about. We have other articles at which such questions can be taken up, such as the Roy Lichtenstein article and the Appropriation (art) article, and of course any editor can create an article focussed on this one question, such as Appropriation in the works of Roy Lichtenstein. I have tried addressing my "issue" here but I was soundly shunted aside by means of edits such as this and this.

I could open an WP:RFC on each of the article Talk pages. But my objection is the same in each case. By the way, Roy Lichtenstein has never been sued for copyright infringement.,

I don't have a general objection to the inclusion of material pertaining to the propriety of Lichtenstein's use of comic-book derived imagery. (There is in fact inclusion of material of that nature specific to the "Whaam!" painting and I have no objection to that.) But in the case of articles on individual works of art such material should be pertinent to the artwork under discussion. I think that articles on individual works of art always coexist with articles on the artist; the article on the artist would be a natural repository for material of this nature. It is possible to include out of scope material in articles on individual works of art. But the above material is of questionable relevance because it is so obvious and because contemporary art so often challenges accepted conventions. It almost goes without saying that objections would be raised to the effrontery to both the world of fine art and the world of comic-book art by the conflating of low art and high art. I actually think the inclusion of comments such as the above make Wikipedia look stupid. And the above four assertions can only be understood to apply to an indeterminate number of Lichtenstein paintings, therefore I don't see the justification for the comments in articles on individual works of art.

Is there any way I can take up both these issues found at two different articles at once? Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Until you resolve your objections to "Whaam!" I have entered a Strong Oppose to the article here at FAC...Modernist (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. You may not be familiar with the fact that, one of the FAC directors moved his 97KB of issues to the FAC talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive1. Much of his commentary was ignored by me the nominator because the other discussants disagreed with most of it. Read the full 97KB before standing so strongly behind this oppose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, you can post a message at the talk page of the relevant Wikiproject. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that suggestion. I may do that. Bus stop (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-exclusive
I'm not sure which wiki-policy would be the best for this, but I think we should add something along the lines of the following: --Coin945 (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as a Wiki-exclusive. Wikipedia is never the first to hear about any information. It is never the first to publish any information either. Wikipedia is always the last to know. If you are the head of a company, and you would like to announce a brand new project, don't do it via Wikipedia. No matter how true it is, it will be deleted. Be interviewed by the New York Times, and a few other newspapers. Don't worry, we'll find you."


 * We already have such things, but in other words, and at several places. WP:NOT, WP:NOTPROMOTION, the totality of WP:OR, and basically the very nutshell of WP:V. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, cool. :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Place for marked fringe science, alternative practice and conspiracy theories
Please take a look at Paul Pantone user talk page and his "user page" (don't know how to wiki both, because he uses %C3 so giving the full link) obviously abusing wikipedia.

This kind of page won't blow away, whatever we do. Also, IMHO the negative aspect is extremely important: For any fringe science, alternative practice, or conspiracy, it is important to bring reliable resources showing:
 * why it cannot work, or why the idea is wrong
 * how people are being taken advantage of through this method
 * how unimportant or irrelevant issues are being emphasized and exploited to make it seem reliable
 * which organizations, people and ideas involved in this idea - have been involved in other unreliable activities and especially when involved in malpractice.

In the example above, Paul Pantone's Jailing for going against a protective order given to prevent his abuse on or threat to his wife, is being portrayed as suppression of his idea, by the oil cartel.

These negative aspects of those kinds of ideas, are extremely important information for human kind, definitely more so than a third rated actor who can prove some notability for playing in some nonsense show on TV.

In other words, I think that wikipedia should have a place for fringe science and conspiracy theories, para-medical treatments and the likes, albeit giving the correct (small) weight to claims and clearly showing their apparent fallacy, while revealing their methods, according to reliable sources.

But I don't know HOW this should be done. Maybe a separate section of the wikipedia, or perhaps some markings, and a policy with guidelines for entries of this sort. Perhaps each type of fallacy should have an entry with sub entries: for our example: Fringe Science/Over Unity Engines, Fringe Science/Exhaust Energy/GEET Engine...

I know that wikipedia's current policy does not allow this. Supposedly this can lead to POV or at least POV wars. But scientific information is what we call "reliable" and "non biased" and although even in science there is never complete objectivity, we rely on it, and it is considered NPOV.

So I'm calling on you, to please discuss this openly, and help define a new policy, or maybe even some new templates and guidelines within the current policy, so that this kind of information CAN be added. Of course you may think that the current policy of ignoring this information is the correct policy, and I respect that. I'm asking for those who agree with me to please help think of a way to get this information on wikipedia, without it leading to a positive edge for those POV advocates of the idea, and while clearly conveying the (reliably sourced) negative aspects of the idea, practice or personality. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pashute... Have you seen our WP:Fringe theories policy page?... it tells us when it is (and is not) appropriate to discuss a fringe theory on Wikipedia, and outlines how to do so. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, could WP:FAKEARTICLE apply here?-- cyclopia  speak!  13:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ÆE/Paul Pantone -- Neil N   talk to me  17:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I did not see WP:Fringe theories policy page. Thanks!! OK, so what I'm arguing is for a change in policy on Notability. Would a Paul Pantone Geet engine pass "notability"? IMHO it should.
 * One of the important headings of that page say:
 * Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects...
 * Granted. But what is non-significant? Because fringe science, alternative medicine, over unity engineering and conspiracy theories are now shaping politics, changing lives (sometimes all the way to the other side), and extremely prevalent, in my opinion the whole subject needs to get a second look.
 * As a side issue, please discuss Paul Panton on his talk page. It was just an example. Not the topic of this discussion. Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Our policy regarding fringe topic notability is clear enough, as I see it. If it doesn't receive mainstream attention, it isn't notable, and doesn't get coverage. Which is the way it should be. Wikipedia has no specific 'fringe-refuting' mandate, and I don't think one is either necessary, nor something we'd be particularly suited for anyway - if it hasn't received mainstream attention, refuting it usually involves WP:OR. Leave the 'fringe fringe' to the specialists, and concentrate on dealing with the 'notable fringe' material we already have the mechanisms and policy in place to deal with. As for your suggestion that the fringe is shaping politics, it always has to some extent, and I can see no particular reason to think that things are getting worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy, No reason to think things are getting worse? I think many will disagree with you. There's a big difference between the once prevalent Kennedy assassination theories, vs. the Sandy Hook false flaggers and the 9-11 twin tower truthers. There never was such a prevalent and open access to an information stream like youtube and TV stations like RT TV that reach such a large public viewing, with such an impact. When Wikipedia started off, science was not viewed as "just another point of view". But more immediately apparent: quackery in the medical field was not tolerated. Today, it seems it is. These are all questions of life and death, to individuals, and to us as a society. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing a specific change to Wikipedia policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay Images
Should we seek consensus about a guideline that covers cosplay images? I have been in a few recent discussions about using them in articles that have limited images because they need to be fair use. Articles like comics and video games. The discussion about using this image in Black Widow (Natalia Romanova) was decided as no inclusion. Races of The Elder Scrolls has one that so far seems to be acceptable. World of Warcraft has the same image and we are discussing changing it on the talk page to one that matches the game better. The 'not include' arguments vary from slowing down pages, ugly format, notability, to text in articles not mentioning cosplay. IMHO many of these articles are overloaded with fair use images that can be replaced with free use ones of cosplayers for the readers to see what characters look like. The Black Widow article above has five fair use images and no free ones. Yes, I did create the two above images and one editor thinks I am trying to spam articles with them. I don't believe creating and adding images to articles that are lacking free ones should be considered spam though. I did the same with the Ajay Fry image for InnerSPACE and no one had any objections there. Images may not be as big a contribution as text but we should think of our readers. I think most would like larger free images over the smaller fair use ones we have in too many articles now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Our image use policy already favors free images over fair use images, whether the specific images are better or worse in a specific article is something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. In other words, no, I do not believe we need a policy on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)We don't need a policy but a guideline would help. This would shorten the discussions on all the comic and video game articles that only use fair use images now. Good images of cosplayers can be found for almost all of our articles about these fictitious characters which would be a lot of repeated discussion arguments. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosplay is full of images that could enhance the readers' grasp of these characters. It seems a shame to just leave them taking up space on commons and not be used. We could easily cop out of writing a guideline and discuss it to death for each article or we could move forward on consensus for inclusion. It would probably be the same small group of editors in each discussion just causing less and less good faith among them. I have almost given up in those heated discussions but would discuss a guideline.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This area is a mess. There is a real possibility that a photo of a good cosplay of a copyrighted character could by subject to the copyright of the underlying character. There have been multiple conflicting opinions from different foundation counsel, a recent one being found at commons policy and original statement which commons seems to be ignoring. In light of the copyright mess, I would say it is not advisable to replace better non-free images with fan representations which themselves may be non-free. Monty  845  15:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The legal issues have never come to a DCMA takedown. Until then there shouldn't be any harm.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, given the Foundation hasn't said "we consider these non-free", then as long as Commons accept them as "free" for the most part (their template "Costume" notes some legal issues in some countries) then we should consider them free and available to use. Appropriateness in articles, or when they are free replacements of NFCC images, that's a different matter once we assign them free. --M ASEM  (t) 16:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If we have a free image, and it's fit for purpose (not "as good", not "as high quality", etc., just fit for purpose) for the subject of the article in question, we without exception use that in preference to any nonfree image. In cases illustrating a general principle or classification, like "elf" or "Jedi" or "Vulcan", an accurate, in-character cosplay depiction will be appropriate. For "Galadriel" or "Luke Skywalker" or "Spock", a cosplay image would not be appropriate, because no matter how good a cosplayer is, they're not Mark Hamill depicting the specific character in the movie. We don't need a separate policy for that, NFCC #1 already requires that nonfree images not be used when free images are available. (The concerns that such images could be nonfree are separate, and I'm by no means a copyright lawyer, but I find it a little hard to believe that a generic depiction of an archetype is covered by copyright. You can't copyright a concept, only specific implementations of that concept, so you can copyright "Superman", but not the idea of superheroes.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the question that some editors can't get their head around. These fictional characters exist in comics, film, TV, video games as well as cosplay. Cosplay is the portrayal that isn't included in articles. To deny images of a cosplayed version of a character is to deny that cosplay exists as another version of it. These articles mostly have 'in popular culture' sections and cosplay is a popular culture.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the legal issues for others more well versed in that : ) - But just from an MoS standpoint, I would think Cosplay versions may be used in the body of an article to show an example of Cosplay. Though I think there is a line somewhere between coplay, larping, and going to a costume party/halloween ball. Regardless of all of these, the cosplay image should never be used as the primary example image to illustrate a character for an article unless the cosplay version is the primary example. For example, the Spider-Man article would have a 2D comics image for in infobox, not someone dressing as Spider-Man. - jc37 16:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think all agree to the infox image being the first or an early Spiderman comic. The copyright shouldn't be an issue as commons servers are in FLA same as the en:wp ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I started Cosplay images in articles. Feel free to help out.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See also: Manual of Style/Images (not just for infoboxes). - jc37 21:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (Reply to jc37): It depends on the article. Spiderman is a specific character, and so using a cosplay image there is inappropriate. On the other hand, many of the discussions relate to classes of characters, such as a superhero or a Jedi. In that case, a high-quality cosplay image meeting all the requirements is an appropriate free image for that article, and would preclude the use of any nonfree images. The same is not true, of course, for articles on particular characters such as Superman or Luke Skywalker, as cosplay images would not represent the actual depiction of the character and so would be misleading and inappropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw what you said above (Mark Hamil etc.), and thought you had that covered, but nod, I agree. Though this sort of creates a slidebar from the general to the specific, so I think some of those in the fuzzy middle (no Furry jokes please : ) may need discussing on a case by case basis. - jc37 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Catwoman has 11 fair use and only one PD image. Flickr probably has 1000s of free ones and we have 17 at commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Short or long
After a discussion at commons I discovered linguistic description and linguistic prescription. Dictionary says they exist in either form. I haven't read encyclopedia yet to see what flavour they are. Has this been codified to make this a short discussion or do we need a policy consensus in a long discussion? Are we an apple or an orange?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems we are both. "...article is able to treat it in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject..." from encyclopedia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Civility Enforcement
The policy on civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, but is inconsistently and incompletely enforced. There are two principal issues. The first is that certain editors, who are known as excellent content creators, are commonly almost given a free pass from complying with the policy. (I am not only referring to a particular editor whose unblock was handled badly, but to other content creators who are habitually uncivil to other editors. The second, and perhaps more serious, issue is that the policy on civility is written clearly, in two parts, but that typically only one of those parts is effectively enforced.  Part 1 of the policy forbids personal attacks, profanity, and other obvious breaches of civility.  Part 2 states that certain other types of behavior are equally serious.  They include taunting or baiting an editor, possibly in order to provoke him or her into a personal attack or gross profanity, lying about another editor's views, and quoting another editor out of context (in order to misrepresent his or her views).  There are complaints at the civility talk page that baiting and lying are not dealt with; only the resulting personal attack is dealt with. It occurs to me that one reason for this problem (failure to enforce the second part of the policy, whose offenses preceded the violation of the first part of the policy) is that the noticeboards, WP:ANI and WP:AN, are not the best forum for looking into issues where there are multiple user conduct issues. The noticeboards are supposed to close issues quickly, based on "community consensus", which can be a will-o-the-wisp when there is no real consensus. Such cases, where an editor provoked another editor, should be sent to the ArbCom, which has an evidence-gathering process, and which does not require consensus because the ArbCom actually votes. Is this forum an appropriate one to discuss better enforcement of existing policy? There is nothing wrong with the policy, but there is something wrong with its application. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "baiting" claims are perniciously used by people who don't believe that they have to treat others respectfully as a means to disclaim any responsibility for their own actions. Every incident of gross and abusive behavior towards others was instigated by others, who baited them, even if the "baiting" behavior was merely having the gall to hold a different opinion or was a polite request to tone down prior incivility.  Baiting is usually an excuse to allow people to treat others like shit with no consequences, and little else.  -- Jayron  32  01:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is often true. If an editor is being baited or taunted by another editor, there are appropriate means to respond, which do not include personal attacks.  They do include responding on the article talk page, responding on the talk page of the user who is doing the baiting, various forums for resolution of the content dispute that is being interfered with by the conduct, and, if necessary, a user conduct Request for Comments.  I agree that a few editors do not think that they have to treat other editors with respect.  As I mentioned, some of them get off easy.  However, the personal attack should not be dealt with in a vacuum.  It may indeed be a case of two editors who have a long-standing hostility to each other.  Such long-standing conflicts may be better dealt with by the more deliberative resolution of the ArbCom than at the noticeboards, at least if previous steps in dispute resolution have been tried and have not ended the conflict.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, Jayron32, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. I had to read your statement:  "Every incident of gross and abusive behavior towards others was instigated by others" twice before I realized that you were quoting sarcastically the attitude of the uncivil editors.  I agree that that is a common "bad attitude", but I had to read it twice to recognize that you, Jayron32, were not giving them a free pass. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I originally identified habitually uncivil editors as an editor retention issue, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention. I said that habitually uncivil editors may discourage the retention of new editors by creating a hostile workplace.  I don't have statistics, but I would guess that the frequency of incivility in Wikipedia is in particular a barrier to retention of new female editors, contributing to the known gender gap.  There, and at the civility talk page, I encountered the arguments that you quote.  I largely agree with Jayron32, but I still think that the noticeboards are not the right forum to deal with continuing conflict between editors, and that if previous procedures have not resolved the issue, the ArbCom should be the final tribunal.  The noticeboards do not deal effectively with habitually uncivil editors who are known as content creators (and so have fan clubs at the noticeboards), and those editors are intimidating to new editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Jayron - you are ignoring Robert's primary point, which is that there is more than one kind of uncivil behaviour, and one form of it, the insidious, provocative stuff that doesn't involve naughty words, generally goes unpunished. By trying to downplay it you really are proving his point. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not downplaying anything. I'm merely noting that arguments of "baiting" are the refuge of those who wish to be exempted from the consequences of their own choices.  No more, no less.  Yes there are many ways to be incivil, and none should be given a free pass.  -- Jayron  32  03:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with both posters. On the one hand, an editor who is "baited" or "taunted" should not be given a free pass when he or she responds with a personal attack.  On the other hand, the baiting or taunting should not happen in the first place.  Both require blocks or other enforcement action.  In general, cases where baiting or taunting is met with personal attacks are cases of long-standing hostility between two (or three or four) editors.  Part of the problem is that the noticeboards are now the usual forum for dealing with such issues, but are not a good forum for looking into the underlying issues, because of the need to close cases quickly with a "consensus" as to the length of the block (and when an uncivil editor with a reputation as an excellent content creator has a fan club asking for a free pass for him).  I mostly agree with both posters, but submit that the ArbCom is a better forum for dealing with editors who war because they dislike each other.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to come out and say it: if you are "popular" and a well-known attendee on some big wiki project or a message board regular or whatever, WP:CIVIL just plain doesn't apply to you. Any serious attempts to enforce it will lead to a massive screaming whinefest on WP/ANI from your supporters and you will get off with no more than a slap on the wrist. Except in the most blatant of cases, being an unpleasent ass is not a punishable offense unless you're some nobody no one cares about. Jtrainor (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Other Policies

 * Actually, I wonder if there are many policies that are not "inconsistently and incompletely enforced"..? For example, would you say that WP:NPOV (another "pillar") is enforced completely and consistently (including WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE)..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On those two specifically... yes, I would say they are consistently and completely enforced... although that enforcement is often a slow process. At any given moment an article may contain UNDUE material... but eventually it will be addressed.
 * As to the issue of "baiting"... it does occur... the important thing is how you respond to it. There is no excuse for "rising to the bait" and returning incivility for incivility.  Admins do know that when someone complains that they are the "victim" of personal attacks, the editor making the complaint might well be doing something to cause those attacks.  And if an editor develops a pattern of "always the victim... never the perpetrator", the complaints can boomerang back on the complainer ... the "victim" will be seen for what he/she really is... a subtle manipulator who is just as disruptive as those who rise to his/her baiting.  It just takes a bit longer to identify the problem. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As to NPOV, I agree that it is inherently slow and tedious to achieve. There are articles that remain out of NPOV for years, but those are typically cases of individual articles (often of interest to only a few editors), not cases of systematic limitation or bias in enforcement.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As one who routinely attempts to consistently and completely enforce WP:NPOV, I submit that it's one of the areas that leads to provocative behaviour. Attempting to remove blatantly POV material can often lead to quite intense confrontation. I've been taken to ANI more than once by people who don't like their POV being removed. They rarely suffer any real consequences, and waste an awful lot of everybody's time. HiLo48 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In such case one could say that civility is also enforced consistently and completely. After all, incivility does stop - eventually. Because human endurance (or life expectancy) has limits.
 * As far as I understand, the "consistency and completeness" was meant to include chasing away (or forcing to obey) the users who refuse to be civil. And in that case, how soon (on average) is an editor who does not even pretend to try to follow WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE or WP:NOR chased away..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe Martynas should restate his or her points, because they appear to be something of a word game. The retention time of editors who do not even try to follow WP:NOR is shorter, in my experience, than those who do follow all of the content guidelines but do not follow WP:CIVIL.  Long-standing issues about neutral point of view and fringe theories do sometimes go on for a long time, but they reflect the lack of consensus in the Wikipedia community.  Such controversies become particularly heated when there is a consensus in the scientific community or other mainstream community, but a non-trivial following for the fringe views in Wikipedia, or (worse) where there is a non-trivial following for the fringe theory in the United States as a whole (or presumably some other Anglophone nation).  Examples include homeopathy, Scientology, and creationism.  In those cases, the problem is not that we don't enforce the policies about non-consensus views and non-neutral points of view, but, more basically, that we can't decide what are fringe views. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose we could argue about suitableness of claiming that homeopathy is not fringe, but I have a better counterexample.
 * I hope you'll agree that Seventh Day Adventism is not that extremely popular. And yet, look at Talk:Vicarius Filii Dei and its archives, or Requests for comment/Willfults. Do you see evidence of numerous bans for "POV pushing" or something related..? No..?
 * And concerning your statement "In those cases, the problem is not that we don't enforce the policies about non-consensus views and non-neutral points of view, but, more basically, that we can't decide what are fringe views."... The problems in this case and in case of civility seem to be mostly the same:
 * There are too many editors who do not want the policies to be enforced (sometimes they would also be banned if the policies were enforced).
 * The majority of the editors who could intervene do not care enough to enforce the policy. It might be because the issue is too unclear or too minor. Or too unpleasant, or too "dangerous", or requiring too much work.
 * On average the "visible" community in English Wikipedia tends to be lenient and "Libertarian". So, we often get lots of talk about "second chances", "productive contributors", "lynch mobs" and "admin abuse" when policies get close to being enforced. Even when a user who cannot communicate in English is asked to leave.
 * I think you will agree that in many cases those problems are the reasons for lack of enforcement of civility. I'd say they are the same problems that prevent the enforcement of other policies as well. And no, I do not know a good solution. It is slightly easier in Lithuanian Wikipedia where we try to chase away undesirable editors sooner, before we get a "critical mass" of them, but it seems to be too late for that here... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there can't be a scientific consensus about religion. A man or woman has a right to his or her own beliefs.  One does not have a right to one's own scientific facts, even if free speech permits one to be wrong about them.  Science, where there is a collective process for determining truth, and religion, which is about beliefs about truth, are two different spheres.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Er, I don't think I understand your position. You say that trying to pretend that homeopathy is not fringe does not violate WP:FRINGE, as things are not clear there, and now you say that scientific matters are clear..? Anyway, it doesn't have to matter that much... First of all, the fact that papal tiaras have no inscription "Vicarius Filii Dei" is, well, a scientific fact, easy to check. Second, that was not my only point, nor my main point. Do you actually agree with my explanation why our policies are not enforced with all harshness one would expect..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that it is the consensus of the scientific community that homeopathy is fringe, and so not labeling it as WP:FRINGE violates scientific consensus.  The problem is that, although there is a scientific consensus that homeopathy and creationism are fringe, there isn't a consensus in Wikipedia.  There isn't a consensus and will never be a consensus in the United States or most other Anglophone countries about religion.  There is a consensus in the United States that there will never be a consensus about religion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In other words, just as I wrote, this problem with enforcement of WP:FRINGE is analogous to problem with enforcement of WP:CIVIL: we have too many editors who do not want them to be enforced, too many editors what would have to be chased away while enforcing them. And, unfortunately one needs some effort to see that those editors are undesirable.
 * And once again - I don't think there is a good solution. Maybe some "admin abuse" and increase of administrator independence (as opposed to administrator accountability) might help to chase the right amount of undesirable editors away... Not that we seem to be moving in that direction... Maybe you could get something from Wikiheresy (but that essay does not have consensus support)... Or maybe you can persuade yourself that it doesn't matter that much, as WMF will destroy Wikipedia's community soon enough anyway (see VisualEditor/RFC - [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/RFC&oldid=567464059] - and related pages for more details)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Martynas Patasius: Several of your comments above are an excellent summary of the situation, thank you. Some text you were replying to clearly springs from inexperience—religion is not part of FRINGE because it's not fringe, and whereas various people including scientists have criticized it, there are no scientific studies on whether various religions are "true". By contrast, homeopathy is known to be junk because testable claims are made (drinking this expensive water will cure disease), and those claims are known to be false and contrary to all known science (and science keeps computers humming and airplanes flying, so it's rather more than an alternative viewpoint). Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Johnuniq and with Martynas, as long as we understand that we are talking about science and pseudo-science, and not religion. There are a core of editors who don't understand the policies on WP:FRINGE.  Actually, some of them don't understand, and some of them do, except that they differ from the scientific consensus as to what is fringe.  They agree in principle that fringe science should be tagged as such, but they disagree on their particular variety of fringe science.  That is, they think that homeopathy is not fringe, or whatever.  Another possibility is that they really don't want the policies enforced, as mentioned.  In any case, as Martynas says, the English Wikipedia is perhaps an overly tolerant culture with respect to fringe posters, as well as to uncivil (sometimes even vicious) editors who are good content creators (of non-fringe material).  Also, the English Wikipedia has a subculture of editors who whine about abusive power-hungry admins, while Martynas makes the point that perhaps stronger administration is needed to get rid of the persistent fringe posters.  There is no simple obvious solution.  We just have to keep editing and trying to improve the encyclopedia.  Thank you for your comments, Martynas.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Edit source"
I don't like the new "Edit source" labels everywhere. "Edit" was just fine.Nankai (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * VisualEditor/Default State RFC, you are not alone.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a side effect of the new Visual Editor project. I'd agree that a simple "Edit" is preferable, but it may not be so easy to revert back if there is to be two different methods to edit a page.  I suppose you could argue that the raw wikitext editor should be the default "Edit" button and the Visual Editor ought to be something different.  I think most folks will get used to the current situation (with the "Edit Source" as the only button on talk pages), but it will take a little bit of time.  For myself, I really don't care one way or the other.  --Robert Horning (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nankai, you are definitely not alone. A lot of editors who have tried the new Visual Editor have decided that they don't like it. You can turn it off, and go back to using the old edit buttons  (look in your Preferences... its kind of hard to find, but there is an "opt out" box there somewhere.) Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Preferences, edit tab, bottom of the page, tick the disable while in beta.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We're kind of in a transition mode now. Eventually, the Visual Editor "edit" will (hopefully) do what article editors need, and the "edit source" will be the optional choice.  Right now, though, a lot of people will want both. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS Guide conflict of interest between developers and user/enforcers
If MOS guide developers and advocates are also user/enforcers of a guide, this seems to be a conflict of interest. If the purpose of the guide is to guide, there's no way to know that the wording of the guide (the guides effectiveness) is working well if the same guide editors and advocates are also making edits to articles based on the guide. When the guide editors and advocates are the main user/enforcers, it makes the guide seem more like an excuse for like-minded editors to justify their own edits than a guide for other editors. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What's a "MOS guide developer"? Are you suggesting that editors who are familiar enough with an aspect of Wikipedia that they can contribute meaningfully to the guidelines for that aspect, those editors should refrain from improving Wikipedia elsewhere through the application of those guidelines? That's no "conflict of interest", that's "in the interest of improving the encyclopedia". (And casting any of them as "enforcers" isn't helping.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A MOS guide developer is someone who edits a MOS guide. A most guide advocate is someone who defends the MOS guide as is and opposes suggestions for improvement.  I'm suggesting that editors who are familiar enough with an aspect of Wikipedia that they can contribute meaningfully to the guidelines for that aspect should improve Wikipedia either through improving/defending the guide, or through the application of those guidelines, not both. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not remotely a conflict of interest. Not remotely of benefit to Wikipedia. Not going to happen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Because you say so? Oicumayberight (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because what you're saying doesn't make any sense. And I can't think of a worse change to make in Wikipedia than to make a class of guideline writers completely separate from article writers. postdlf (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't open this discussion looking for opinions. I'm looking for facts. Fact: it wouldn't have to be two separate classes. One user could be a policy/guide developer for a particular guide while also editing articles as long as they exercised some discipline in not pointing to the same policies and guides that they have edited as justification for their article edits. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll bite. Where is the factual data to prove that this would lead to an improvement in Wikipedia? No opinions, please... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Logic will suffice too. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Logically, the conflict of interest isn't between people wanting to improve wikipedia. The conflict is over how people choose to improve wikipedia. One might choose to make the guide more convincing, while the other might oppose attempts to make the guide more convincing and instead use the guide as a hammer when their are conflicts over their own edits in articles. In either case, we wouldn't know if the guide was convincing if mostly guide editors and advocates are making edits based on the guide. If an editor/advocate honestly wants to know if their guide is working as a guide and not a hammer, they need to test how well it's guiding people who aren't emotionally invested in the guide. They can even contribute with clarification on talk pages of articles where the guide is being applied. But once they start editing or voting on edits in articles based on the guide, they are not working in the interest of improving the guide, which could make them blind to any need for improving the guide. This could lead to inbreeding. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding 'logically' to a paragraph of opinions doesn't make it logical. (And BTW, I hope your reference to inbreeding was intended as a metaphor :D )AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as removing "logically" wouldn't make it illogical. Eric   Corbett  21:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have any opinion facts concerning the OP's proposal, Mr Corbett, or are you just here for an argument? (cue obvious link to Monty Python sketch...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless wikipedia is a dating service, it's a safe assumption that inbreeding in the context of ideas is a metaphor. Perhaps if you pointed out any logical errors or claims I've made that are impossible to support by empirical evidence, I could address what you considered to be opinionated. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing you have claimed is supported by empirical evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask if anything I said was supported by empirical evidence. I asked if it was impossible to support anything I said by empirical evidence. I asked if it was falsifiable. It's only opinionated if it's not falsifiable. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I gather that the complaint underlying this thread is a belief that the MOS is "controlled" by a small "clique", who a) write the MOS guidance, then b) go out and "enforce" that guidance over c) the objections of the majority of other editors. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this complaint is accurate... In which case the solution seems obvious... all those other (objecting) editors need to band together, and work on editing (ie changing) the MOS guidance. Our policy and guideline pages are supposed to reflect broad community consensus... but that only works if the broader community gets involved... so that their consensus becomes known. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the (objecting) editors don't know that they are a majority, that won't happen. Instead you'd just have a pluralistic ignorance or silent majority. Either way, the risk of inbreeding and systemic bias remains. The only way guide editor/advocates could be certain that their guide was effective at anything more than attracting like-minded supporters with the same cognitive bias would be to abstain from applying their guide in actual edits. They could even promote and clarify the wording of the guide on the talk pages of the articles in question without crossing that line. In my opinion, that would be much more diplomatic, educational, and welcoming of participation than the way it's working now. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * An editor with "field experience" in editing articles can bring that experience to discussions about policies and guidelines. Conversely, an editor who has participated in discussions about policies and guidelines understands the reasonings behind them, and can defend and explain them when they are challenged.  Therefore, it is beneficial that an editor have experience in both the development and the application of the policies and guidelines.
 * An editor who has just finished a discussion can then choose a list of articles or a category of articles, and can work through them, finding and correcting articles that do not conform to the policies and guidelines (or to one particular policy or guideline). An editor who wishes to have a say in every such discussion can follow Category:Wikipedia surveys and polls and Dashboard.  See also the list of discussions at Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-24/Discussion report.  However, it is difficult for one person to be involved in every discussion, and we all need to accept some decisions that were made without our participation.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that experience in both the development and the application of the policies and guideline helps. I'm thinking that the latter should precede the former. Once one learns what it is about guides that make them difficult or controversial to apply, they learn how to better word the guide to avoid confusion or controversy. It wouldn't be a conflict of interest to go from article editing mode to guide editing mode for the same guide. The risk of conflict in interest is the reverse order for the same guide. I'm also thinking that experience applying guides doesn't have to come from applying the same guides that one edits. For example, one could edit MOS:IMAGES while editing articles based on WP:LAYOUT.


 * A compromise of the above would be for editor/advocates to abstain from getting involved in controversies over their own article edits based on guides they've also edited or advocated for. If someone reverts their edit, they could resort exclusively to discussing on the article talk page or move on to editing other articles. I know this would still leave the door open for WP:TAGTEAMs, but it least it would slow the inbreeding effect. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another compromise would be for editor/advocates who couldn't get their way at Talk:Digital and then couldn't get their way at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to abstain from forum shopping their problem to Village pump (policy). It would still leave the door open for anyone who agrees with the to chime in at the previous forums, but at least it would slow the slow the dead-horse-beating effort. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Way to WP:AGF. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is those who would edit a "manual of style" based upon what they want Wikipedia to become, as opposed to those who are simply codifying widespread practice and trying to clean up the few exceptions that deviate from "typical" standards. The worst kinds of fights on things in the MOS (that usually spill over to here in the Village Pump) revolve around usually one or a small group of editors (often called a "cabal" by opponents) who make widespread changes to Wikipedia on a number of articles, either using a change in the MOS as justification or based upon some "policy".

It may be that sometimes a major style change is in order, and I'm not opposed to that either. Again, the problem comes then how it is done. It really should be something done by consensus, and for myself should involve a large number of editors. Hopefully, if changes are made, they are small and reversible. (see also WP:SOP for a similar philosophy) I take "changes of software" to include the MOS in this case or other policy guidelines as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this purely hypothetical, or do you have an example in mind where something like this happened? Dicklyon (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How can anyone discuss examples peacefully? Is it possible to discuss examples without the personalities involved getting defensive and turning it into a food fight? Is there a way we can address behavioral issues without finger-pointing and naming names? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then being unable to recall anything like what Robert was describing (at least since 2009), I have to think this whole thing is hypothetical. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is check the history of the MOS guide discussions if you really want to know. But even if you were to discuss it as a hypothetical, you can still address the logic or refute the illogic of the hypothetical. That would be the proactive problem-solving approach instead of the crisis management approach or the avoid/kill the discussion approach. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty familiar with WT:MOS, at least for the last three years, but I'm not familiar with any arguments there that fit the description of the problem being discussed here, as described by Robert Horning. Maybe you have a different description that would bring something to mind, but I'm not going to try to read your mind and tell from your "logic" whether such an odd provision would do any good, or is just something that you think would favor your side in some argument or other.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to ignore whatever you choose to ignore. But it doesn't have to be a mind-reading exercise to determine whether or not something is logical or illogical. So far, at least 3 other members in the discussion have understood the logic behind the conflict of interest. One of them actually understood it well enough to address the conflict with a real counterpoint/alternative approach, one understood it well enough to recall how the conflict is manifested, and another member agrees with the original logic/principle aside from any manifestation of the problem. They didn't have to read my mind to see it, they only had to read the text. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wading back in here, I'll point out that there have been numerous kinds of discussions of this nature on the Village Pump in the past that started precisely in the way I described. I suppose you can dig into the archives if you want.  I don't want to dredge up specific examples right now as it seems like this is turning into a personal attack against me right now rather than trying to carry on a discussion about the general concept.  Some older discussions (certainly before 2009) I could point out include dealing with the infamous battles between those who wanted the "BC/AD" used on dates that those who wanted to use "BCE/CE" on dates.  It specifically included changes to the MOS and mass changes on Wikipedia in a large number of articles and epic reverts on that one topic alone.  Personal attacks and editors resigning over the issue and a great many other hurt feelings happened, where fortunately this issue has been mostly put to bed except for some occasional minor flare ups.


 * I can certainly use some more recent examples including a discussion I started on this very topic less than a year ago. I just prefer to leave those discussions in the past, but I think it is the height of ignorance (literally, not knowing the history of Wikipedia) to think this has never been a problem.  The Manual of Style really should be "best practices" and simply describing what is being done rather than what should be done.  I don't understand why this is a hard concept to grasp.  --Robert Horning (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it has never been a problem. I'm saying that nothing like what you described has happened in the last three years, unless you can show otherwise.  I think you're remembering arguments and then completely misconstruing how they happened, and trying to lay blame on some imagined one or a small group of editors (often called a "cabal" by opponents) who make widespread changes to Wikipedia on a number of articles, either using a change in the MOS as justification or based upon some "policy" as you put it.  Of course there are editors who edit a lot of pages based on policy and guidelines.  So what are getting at as a problem here?  Did someone change the MOS and then go change a bunch of articles based on that?  Not that I can recall, unless you count the 2011 revision to MOS:DASH, which had a huge participation and very little pushback in the end (besides from Pmanderson).  Even though a few points of the guideline changed, huge swaths of articles (like the NYC Subway system articles) adhere to the old guidelines with more spacing around en dashes, because nobody felt strongly enough to push on that.  Where's the problem?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The conflict of interest doesn't only lead to unpopular changes to the MOS. It can lead (and IMO has led) to stricter fundamentalistic enforcement of the MOS and fiercer resistance to changes of the MOS. I'm not going to give examples, because it seems to be impossible to do that without it turning into a finger-pointing debate about personalities instead of principle. Once we start down that road, the road hazards never get addressed, let alone fixed. It's so much easier to blame road accidents on bad driving and bad drivers. The principle is that advocates for the status quo should be willing to abstain from editing the articles based on the specific parts of the MOS they advocate for if they really want to know if that part of the MOS is working well enough (as is) to guide anyone new to that part of the MOS in doing what was intended by that part of the MOS. Otherwise, you run the risk of getting an old establishment of MOS enforcers (almost as unscientific as traditionalism or fundamentalism) or worse, inbreeding. WP:IAR isn't enough to overcome fundamentalism or inbreeding once a WP:CABAL starts WP:VOTEing. Even if the Administrators are fair and balanced about arresting, correcting, or revoking the license of "bad drivers," it's still a far more costly burden on wikipedia to reactively police (close roads, remove bodies of victims, investigate who is at fault, write accident reports) than to proactively police (guide/enforce) this simple traffic principle. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:Oicumayberight has a good point. If there is really a consensus for something there should be sufficient number of supporters on a MOS guideline for it to not need the same supporters to also be the ones policing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what these concepts like policing are trying to get at. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the desired conclusion is: editors who support a MOS guideline that I disagree with should not be allowed to edit articles to apply those guidelines; that would make them "enforcers" or make it "policing". (Anyone can apply MOS guidelines that I agree with; that's simply improving the encyclopedia.) Also, anyone who applies a guidelines I disagree with is a supporter of the guideline. Or to paraphrase, no, Oicumayberight does not have a good point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously JHunterJ is making a straw man argument. Nobody suggested "liking" or not "liking edits" based on the guide was any measure of whether or not the guide was working. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole section is a straw man support group. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously JHunterJ doesn't know what a straw man is. This section wasn't started with a misrepresentation of someone else's position. Instead it was started with a premise of my own observation. I'm not going to misrepresent my own position. So now JHunterJ has gone from ad hominem, to straw man, to red herring out of 4 posts. And JHunterJ was the first to respond. If JHunterJ thinks this discussion is so unimportant, then why is JHunterJ so involved in it? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's helpful to point out your errors, lest your misuse of things like "Obviously" make someone only skimming through assume you're right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When you find an actual accounting or logical error (rather than an ad hominem accusation, straw man, or your own red herrings), let us know. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing correct in your assertion; it's unclear why we would need to find specific errors when the underlying premises are faulty. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that. Some editors edit the MOS and then act as if their change justifies their edits.  That would be wrong, if there isn't consensus.  If there is consensus, not even that would be wrong.  What you are talking about is not even evidence of suspicion of a COI.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another argument from ignorance. Because you don't see a COI, it doesn't exist. So I guess the three people who have chimed in that have seen the COI must be delusional. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no actual or potential COI "violation" in the situation you describe. There is a false appearance of a COI.  And ... not necessarily "delusional",, merely unobservant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any relation between my comment and the argument from ignorance. There have been rare cases where someone edits a guideline and then acts on it, or makes changes and then edits a guideline to support it.  They are usually stopped.  If you can provide any examples of a potential COI which doesn't fall into that category.  (For that matter, I frequently edit to support the removals of WP:OVERLINKs and WP:YEARLINKs, even though I think those guidelines are a bad idea.  Does your argument suggest that I shouldn't do that?)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't edit articles in support of a MOS guide. I'm suggesting that you shouldn't edit the MOS Guide and then edit articles based on that particular MOS guide if you really want to know if the guide is actually guiding and not just giving permission like a policy.


 * Just to clarify, you said "COI violation" which may seem to some that I'm claiming that the conflict of interest I mentioned is a violation of the WP:COI policy. I make no such claim. I'm speaking of an inherit conflict of interest based on logic. But it appears that you've agreed there's a conflict of interest in your "rare case" that is "usually stopped." Even if it gets reactively stopped, there's still a conflict of interest that could be dealt with proactively. Oicumayberight (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-ray covers on episode lists
I was told the covers don't meet WP:NFCC in order to be used for episode lists and that they are unnecessary to understand the list. Should all DVD/Blu-ray covers be removed from episode lists and season lists? DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 23:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. An episode list is ancillary to the primary article, which already has (or should) an identifying image in the infobox. If there is only one season, then there doesn't need to be an episode list page, and if there are multiple seasons then how do you decide what DVD cover art to use? You may see some DVD cover art on season article, as those pages are more specific and generally contain a significant amount of information, but not necessarily for a season list (there are some season pages that are articles and some that are merely lists).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also mean to include season lists, like in these cases List of Bleach episodes (season 10) and List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 episodes. From your point, it's okay to have images on those articles? How about List of Black Lagoon episodes. Thanks. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I try and gauge it a bit based on how much information is there, which is why there is a difference between a season "article" and a season "list". Images are used to enhance pages and provide illustration for something to better help a reader. They aren't meant to be purely decorative. For many shows, each season cover art tends to represent a theme of that season, examples I might give would be for Smallville (see related seasonal pages: Smallville (season 1) or Smallville (season 2)). Basic list of episode pages don't really need images, because there isn't much there other than plot summaries, ala List of Smallville episodes. If you look on the latter's page, it has a free image, as basic text cannot be copyrighted. So, to answer your question, I would say that the LoE pages for Bleach, Code Geass, or Black Lagoon, don't necessarily need an image for them.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still, since all anime episode lists are like the ones I linked to, I was hoping there would be something really concrete decided in this discussion cause I will probably start mass removing images from those lists. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs )
 * Wait for more opinions. The people at WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE will probably tell you to remove all of them....actually, they'd probably just remove the images themselves if they learned about them....they're a bit more hardcore about images than even I am. :)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Bignole, from an NFC perspective, I'd argue that there's an allowance, just not a clear-cut one. A rule of thumb - but not concrete - is that if you have a season's episode list and that season has a dedicated release on home media, then you can at least begin a reasonable argument on the inclusion of the home media cover art, since it would be expected that part of the coverage of the season is some broad strokes on its development and reception on its own - eg. making akin to the release of a published work. But this is not as cut and dried as, say, a movie poster. --M ASEM (t) 00:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are the set covers crucial to understanding the content of the article? Does the article have reliably sourced critical commentary discussing the cover and its appearance?  If not, I can't see why you would need to use these images.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  01:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The same argument can be applied to cover art in general - a stance I personally would stand behind but know it has no consensus on WP based on past RFCs. But since we allow cover art on other works even without discussion of the art in general, I would expect the same if an episode is more about the season/set that includes critical discussion about the set and not just a straight up episode list. --M ASEM (t) 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that by virtue of our communal agreement to abide by the policies we do have consensus for removing the media that's not in compliance. Further, do we have a policy that "allow[s] cover art on other works even without discussion of the art in general"?  I know it happens, but is it codified anywhere or are we just winking and nudging each other about it?  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cover art of a work on other works is not a usually granted allowance. You have to explicitly have discussion why the image is relevant in the other work. However, I would argue that this is not the case here. For example, Doctor Who (series 1) is a case of using a cover from the home media used to identify that season, in light that there is significant discussion (Beyond the episode list) about that season. It is effectively like any standalone release of a film or book, and thus the cover art is reasonably used here in the same manner as films and books. --M ASEM  (t) 03:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take it that I can go on a mass removal spree then. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll incur a major fightback against this if you try to do a spree. --M ASEM (t) 02:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I'm still waiting for some consensus so I can either restore an image to one of my lists or go on a removal spree. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, unless we wait, it's no consensus either way (keep or remove). Again, I think the borderline depends on if it is more than just an episode list. In its current state, List of Bleach episodes (season 10) is just an episode list, and a cover image is not needed. --M ASEM  (t) 03:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that each article is unique I would not think that it violates copyright as the images are being used to show the DVD's in question. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment here by DragonZero. Personally, I hope that we don't see any kind of mass removal spree, even though I don't think the covers meet NFCC in most cases. That may sound contradictory, but removal sprees often lead to hurt feelings and anger, as Masem implies. I've even seen people get blocked for not stopping removal sprees when asked. Much more can go wrong than go right if you try to do this. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO, DVD/set covers for season articles does not pass NFCC, and the situation is not really analogous to album art. Album artwork is permitted in the article about the album, usually nowhere else.  In this case here however, the articles are not about a DVD box set, they are about a season or several seasons of a television series.  How the distributors packages and sold that series, and which image they chose for the cover of that isn't terribly relevant to the tv season itself.  This may indeed call for a "removal spree", as I don't see how a posed picture of Aizen (yes I am a huge Bleach fan for the record) helps my understanding of season 12. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That same logic applies to most cover art (outside of episode lists) - that typically the cover provides very little direct understanding of the published work. Yet we (affirmatively) keep cover art because of this idea of implicit branding and marketing (I note I disagree on this point, but consensus on cover art is overwhelmingly in favor of it). Hence, the logic I present - that when we are talking about a seasonal episode list (not a multi-season list) where there is discussion about the season beyond just the episode list, we have exactly the same basic requirements that we would support cover art for any other published work. It's contrary to not allow the same allowance for cover art on season lists with a published form that we apply to any other work. --M ASEM (t) 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be something to this reasoning but it doesn't do anything towards making this sort of art more informative about episode lists. I have to agree with Tarc that the association is too weak to justify inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way. Album art --> album is an intrinsic and historically important connection, millions of people can identify the cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit or Dark Side of the Moon without knowing a thing about either band.  There has been album art that has been pored over detail by detail, inch by inch to see how it relates to the music inside if at all.  So if you have a case to make that File:Charmed (season 4) DVD cover.jpg is at all related to Charmed (season 4), other than commercial packaging, I'm all ears. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See, that's the wrong argument. We're not including album art (under NFCI#1) because its recognizable, we're including it because it carries implicit branding and marketing. For every Abbey Road or Dark Side of the Moon cover, which are instantly recognizable, there's hundreds of album covers that are forgettable, yet we include them because at least the album is notable. Now, I would love to argue that we shouldn't be including album cover art unless it is the subject of discussion, and clearly that's a barrier your examples can likely met in terms of being iconic art, while those hundreds would go by the wayside, but that simply is an argument the community has rejected. And this applies to all published works - books, films, video games, TV title cards, etc. 99% of the title, we present a cover that's just there, not discussed, but consensus agrees to keep it.
 * This is where it is important to make the distinction that some of these per-season episode lists are really more than episode lists but akin to standalone notable targets. Again, I present Doctor Who (series 1) as an example where we are well past an episode list, with twice as much content about the season compared to the episode list. It is, just like most album covers, an identifying image for that season and represents the branding and marketing of the standalone topic. Unlike a typical episode list (Eg List of Naruto episodes (season 1)) even where there's a home media release, this is more a stand-alone list for purposes of WP:SIZE and not so much that the season was notable, and thus that should not support a non-free cover image. I would definitely not argue that every episode list can support cover art within NFCC's requirements, but I can't agree that this is true for all episode lists, and hence any removal has to be very selective. --M ASEM (t) 19:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, is there an anime list that satisfies NFC requirement? Nothing comes to mind for me. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if there is one without surveying them in detail. But knowing how anime is covered in RSs (eg nowhere as near as primetime, live action shows), I would guess that it would be exceptional that an anime season list could support such. Spotchecking a few of the most recent popular ones I know about, I'm just not seeing these to be anything more than episode lists and not about a notable home media release. --M ASEM (t) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to suggest removing covers from anime episode lists then or else this trend will just continue. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's too broad and specific a stroke (at the same time). The better way to judge is by two tests: 1) that the list goes beyond just episode lists and cast, specifically into areas like production, direction, and reception (what we would expect for any published work to be considered notable) and 2) that we have a dedicated home media release of that season. Yes, most anime lists would fail this, no question but so would many other (but not all ) Western TV shows. There is also the possibility that there are anime seasons that would fall into this. So we should consider this in the broader sense of all TV and not just one genre. --M ASEM  (t) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Android image app
This Android app helps you find geo-tagged Wikipedia articles that don't have images, by distance!. Commons started a project on it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Unvisited_app I haven't got a clue how many projects should be made aware of this so I thought I would drop a note here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikified sample from a custom request.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Incubator Portal review
As the result of a lightly-attended discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Platform No. 1, I have added a new portal to an article. The article is about a movie that is likely to be released in the next few months. The general problem is that people who come to the mainspace page and want to create it might not know that there is an article in the incubator where they should put their editorial efforts.

For an example, a recreation of the mainspace article happened with this article in the incubator. The new mainspace article resulted in a procedural AfD to remove the unacceptable article, that resulted in the closing admin reaching beyond the scope of the discussion into the incubator and deleting the incubated article as well. Had the incubator portal version of the page been there, two things would have been different, the editor might not have tried to create the article, and even if the article had been created, other editors could have reverted the additions. It was soon found that sock puppets created a version of this article for the express purpose of getting the topic salted, and this too would not have worked with the incubator portal version of the page in place.

Anyway, the point remains to see if the collective experience at Wikipedia notices some subtle issues here. Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What you are doing here seems a bit outside the norm, and resulted in the page you created in mainspace being nominated for speedy deletion. I've declined the speedy deletion and opened a discussion at Articles for deletion/Platform No. 1 (2nd nomination) instead. --RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've asked you at the AfD how opening a 2nd discussion (one without an argument for deletion) helps Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * AFD is the standard venue for discussing deletion of mainspace pages. Another editor had already asked for deletion, so I don't see why you think discussion there would be avoided. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a general venue, it is a specialized venue that requires an argument for deletion, as per WP:SK. Perhaps you are thinking of WT:Articles for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In order to isolate this discussion from the AfD, I've created a similar example page at WT:Article Incubator/Platform No. 1/Platform No. 1. Unscintillating (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea you have about AfD being specialised into a simple yes/no question about deletion is incorrect. "Deletion" is in the name of the venue but it isn't the only outcome of AfDs. CSDs are deliberately narrowly defined - very specific situations mandating very specific outcomes. AfD is the catchall to decide what to do in more difficult situations. To be honest Unscintillating, I think this whole issue is a bit dead; rather summed up by the fact that incubator itself is being mooted for closure altogether. The history of the project up to now indicates that whether articles end up in the incubator or deleted makes precious little difference - ultimately no one ends up working on them and they just languish in incubator purgatory forever. All this malarkey about having essentially blank articles linking to incubator pages, and dragging non-notable subjects through AfD 1, 2, 3, DRV etc. etc. is all noise and no signal. It ultimately makes no difference because the articles never get worked on anyway. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 00:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit history for my work on the incubated article was moved into mainspace at Omar Todd before it was deleted, so administrators might not easily be able to know that my edits were being done to the incubated article, but they can see the edits, the point being that it is not correct that this article was not being worked in the incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that, "The history of the project up to now indicates that...articles never get worked on" is refuted with Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * AFD is not a specialized venue; it is a generalized venue for discussion of what to do with questioned articles in mainspace. However, at this point, the "marker" in mainspace has again been deleted, rightly or wrongly, so that there is nothing to discuss at AFD.  It isn't even no content or no context.  It isn't there.  Anyway, I have no idea, nor do some other editors, understand why User:Unscintalling is wasting a lot of editor time trying to discuss an article that is clearly not a real article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As of when I post this, the page Platform No. 1‎ is not deleted and the AFD is still open. --RL0919 (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The waste of time was Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination). This article and the subsequent nomination are why the portal was created.  That is 38,000 bytes and 57 edits of waste.  Also, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination), where you will see that this AfD spawned seven additional discussions.  This would not have happened if this article had existed as the Incubator Portal version.  There were three (!) sock-puppet investigations.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have nominate Portal:Article Incubator for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Article Incubator as it seems equally as WP:TROUTish. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you normally trout people working to improve the encyclopedia? Unscintillating (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * When you're doing tht you think is helpful but is actually just making a mess and wasting everyone's time, without realising this, yes, yes, yes, that's the whole point of WP:TROUT. Please wake up and smell the coffee (but don't take it personally).  Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The waste of time was Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination), and the seven spawned discussions, including three sock-puppet investigations. None of that would have happened with an Incubator Portal version of the article in place.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that Omar Todd was deleted, I do not think you can say it was a waste of time. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion of Omar Todd at that AfD was never in doubt, so showing that a long deletion discussion infested with sock puppets and three sock-puppet investigations were something other than waste is an argument you have yet to make. And once you have found something useful there, you need to compare it with what would have been the case if Omar Todd had had the Incubator Portal version of the article.  There would never have been the AfD at all.  So which is better, AfD infested with sock puppets and 3 SPI's, or no AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, which I still don't understand, but in that case I really don't care about the past history here, including that AFD. It's not important. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is another case in point. I was just now in the process of adding an incubated article that had not been actively edited since 2 July 2012, Article Incubator/The 4th Reich (film), to the WP:Article Incubator/Greenhouse.  I noticed that it was a red link.  I tracked this down and found that on 25 July 2013, it had been taken to MfD here.  Not only that, the article was created in mainspace on 22 August 2012, only two and a half months after the 10 July decision at Articles for deletion/The 4th Reich (film) to delete and then incubate the article.  Note that the incubated deletion on 27 July 2013 was done with A10, "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, The 4th Reich (film))".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Response to User:Fyre2387, who argues that portals have a more narrowly defined meaning than being used here:
 * "Portals...assist in helping editors to find...things they can do to improve Wikipedia..."


 * The problem is, how do we give a potential editor information that a topic has a draft in the incubator? What if instead of the portal, we had the same message, "The English Wikipedia does not currently have an article on this topic", but use the Talk page to report the existence of the incubated article?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Using the talk page helps, but it is Portals that exist as pathways from reading Wikipedia to editing Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Wikipedia has a "to do" list that reads, "Here are some tasks you can do:...*Add WikiProject Wikipedia to articles in our scope." Unfortunately for this discussion, Portal:Wikipedia is the main page.  Is there a similar portal for using on mainspace articles?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Describing article issues in the article?
The only time I've seen article issues discussed with non-template text in an article is when a CSD or PROD is explained. Today, I came across this in a BLP. Do we actually want this? If not, why is there a reason parameter in the template? -- Neil N   talk to me  00:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "reason" parameter was added to BLP sources last December, following this discussion. There are other templates that use the parameter, such as cleanup and copyedit, and yes, people sometimes abuse it by making lengthy comments that really belong on the talk page. But the parameter does serve a valid purpose, so I'm not sure what could or should be done to prevent this abuse – maybe impose a character limit? DoctorKubla (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've moved the comment in question to the talk page. Reasoning in such templates is intended to consist of brief comments, not entire paragraphs. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Over-warning
As a constant user of Wikipedia and sometimes minor contributor, I think policy needs to shift on marking up entries with warnings. Wikipedia is beginning to look like a bandaged up animal, stickers all over it that amount to disclaimers. As a user, I have seen many well-written, non-commercial entries flagged up so much with [citation needed] that they're barely readable. Some folks should be looking through all these flags and warning banners and clean them up a bit.

Let me put it this way: If an article is written with footnotes and a particular statement does not contain a footnote, the reader knows that the author's comment is not substantiated. So what really need to be caught are particularly egregious unsupported statements, not just have a field day marking up stuff. You don't want Wikipedia to start looking like a bunch of corrections and incompletions. Editing also means clipping out the "provisos" and cleaning things up. Some of the banner warnings have been out there for several years.

Consider the article on Preludes (music) that I happened upon yesterday. The banner warning that it does not contain sufficient citations has sat out there since 2009. As a reader, as opposed to an editor, the banner is like a red flag that's something wrong with the article. There isn't really. The article is straightforward. Many have cleaned up bits of grammar and contributed. No one, so far as I can see, has doubted the veracity of the essays contents. Yet the warning label sticks.

The policy of requiring citations for every statement is being applied so strictly that such a large percentage of articles contain them that a reader is forced to either ignore them altogether or consider whether most of Wikipedia is unconfirmed poppycock. By applying a standard that contributors to Wikipedia seem unable to rise to, the editors seem to be implying that it is just that, a collection of poorly supported assertions.

Does anyone know the actual percentage of articles that currently bear banner warnings and "citation needed" flags? I am completely in accord with the in cases where there is significant difference of opinion or dispute. But, to my mind, this has gotten out of control. It's far too much easier to flag something is "not meeting Wikipedia standards" than it is to actually fix the problems in an article. The end result is an "encyclopedia" that seems to have nearly as many disclaimers as articles! I urge Wikipedia editors to increase their efforts to clean up articles, especially ones with long-standing banner warnings. Perhaps a policy could be devised where warnings are periodically reviewed and strategic decisions made to a) drop the article as inadequate b) fix the its flaws or c) drop the warning label. There are many cases where this third alternative might well be the most appropriate solution.

MacRutchik (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First, we don't need a citation on every statement, and in fact encourage avoiding that as much as possible. But we do require inline citations reasonably close to the statement quotes so the reader can find information. Second, Prelude (music) is in terrible shape as it cites only two things: freedictionary.com (which is no way a good source), and another encyclopedia.  The article is clearly appropriate but it lacks citations and references that are needed to be of quality. That's why we have those warnings so that the reader is both aware that sourcing may be weak or non-existant, and to encourage them to help improve on that. There are no problems with warning messages like this as long as they call to the reader to help repair. --M ASEM  (t) 02:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the banner disclaimers. However, the tagging of statements that are obviously true and relevant seems a bit excessive. I doubt some of these statements will ever be sourced because the statements are such common knowledge within a field or culture, no professional author will risk sounding sophomoric and verbose by stating the obvious in the same way that an encyclopedia would state it. Some words and concepts are defined only by the context in which they are used. Some words, synonyms, and concepts never transcend casual conversation in published statements. And even when they do, very few editors will take the time to dig up such statements, just to have them rejected as sources because they aren't word-for-word quotes. IMO, If someone puts a "citation needed" flag on a statement, they should at least open a discussion on the talk page for their reason to doubt the accuracy or the neutrality of the statement. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no "policy of requiring citations for every statement". See WP:MINREF for a summary of the actual requirements.  If you see an article tagged (with any tag) that is outdated, inappropriate, or otherwise undesirable, then please remove it.  I've spent hours cleaning out unref tags on articles that actually contain references.  There are a lot of people who like to add these tags.  We need people like you to remove them when they're no longer appropriate.  See Category:Articles lacking reliable references (45,000 articles), Category:Articles with unsourced statements (320,000 articles), Category:Articles lacking sources (235,000 articles; in the past, up to 20% of these have been incorrectly tagged), and Category:Articles needing additional references (224,000 articles).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you define a statement as "obviously true"? What's obviously true to one reader may not be obviously true to another; we provide citations to eliminate this element of uncertainty. If no editors can or are willing to provide citations for a statement that has been challenged, then it's my opinion that the statement should be removed from the article until such time as that changes. Furthermore, as Wikipedia is intended for general readership, it is not to my mind acceptable to say "this is common knowledge within this field". Articles should be written and sourced so that they can be reasonably understood regardless of whether a reader is a specialist in said field. I think it's more "sophomoric" to refuse to adjust one's writing style for general readership when I believe it's clear that that's the intended audience of Wikipedia; WP is not a technical/specialist publication. Anyway, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but in my opinion you shouldn't add unsourced information to a WP article (or refuse to provide a source when information has been challenged) unless you're prepared for the information to be removed precisely because no sources are being provided to back it up. I also don't think it's reasonable or productive to mandate that when adding a CN tag the editor start a Talk page discussion; the simplest resolution is to simply provide a source and moot any possible argument. DonIago (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the ideal. But in reality, there are many cases where neither is happening for a long time. Sources aren't being provided just because a CN tag is added. Nor are the unsourced statements being removed. My guess is that the statements aren't being removed because they are obviously true to whomever reads the article. Sources aren't being found because well-known authors aren't in the business of stating the obvious in the way that it would be stated in an encyclopedia.  At best, well-known authors only imply in their writings what would otherwise be made explicit in an encyclopedia article. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Overtagging might be interesting to some of the people here.
 * Oicumayberight, I think that the typical reason that sources aren't being found is because nobody is actually looking for them. Finding and adding sources for material added by someone else is not what most WP:VOLUNTEERS want to do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The way sources get scrutinized, I don't blame editors for not wanting to look. It's not difficult to find sources when the article is about a piece of work, historical event, or biography. But when it's about emerging concepts, techniques, or skills, it's very difficult to find word-for-word quotes that support any editors description of the concept, technique, or skill in a way that flows with the article. And then you run the risk of plagiarism if you include too many quote from the same author. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to jump in by saying I think MacRutchik raises a very good point. I do think we over-use tags.  And I've certainly seen people throw tags on articles seemingly because they don't like them (AfD fails, turn around and tag the article for 5 things including notability).  But even when those tags are placed in good faith and for good reason, it isn't all that uncommon that the problem will be fixed and no one will remove the tag.  Or, as I have on my homepage:
 * I love the above tag! Next time I make an article from scratch I will slap that tag on myself straight from the beginning, see if anyone notices. It does bring up a valid point though, we have too many editor's who think they are doing an enormous duty to Wikipedia by going around and slapping tags and some how this makes them a great "crusader". And inevitably arguments ensue when tagged material sits languishing and when it finally is removed and someone yells about it being removed out comes WP:BURDEN and arguments over how much burden really should be on those adding and how much on tagging. Really I would love to see a push to rewrite burden to put more of a burden on those who tag to actually research first and do some work, instead of simply encouraging them to do so. If we put an actual work burden on these people who are tag happy then maybe they will actually start contributing instead of only pointing out others problems and hoping a third party fixes it.Camelbinky (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, burden suggests tagging it rather then deleting it outright. It makes no sense to tell me, the guy who is disputing the claim, that I need find the citation for it... Would it be better if we depricated the citation needed tag, and just immediately removed contentious, uncited claims? Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been seen that most editors who add citation needed tags are not actually disputing the veracity of a claim, they are simply saying that something is not sourced. Regardless, yes, you should take 2 seconds out of your "busy" life to do a quick google search and see if the sentence or statement can be found in a source. If you have time to spend going through articles find unsourced statements and tagging them then you have time to search quickly for some sources. Or is this some contest where you would rather tag 100 things in a day instead of taking time to find and add sources to 10 things and tag an additional 10 you couldn't quickly find sources? Yes, 100 looks bigger and better than 20, but which way of doing things truly adds to Wikipedia's betterment?Camelbinky (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You make a number of claims in this paragraph that I'd be curious to see citations for myself. In any case, if you're going to accuse tagged editors of nefarious motives for tagging without, allegedly, bothering to try to determine whether sources exist, should you not also fault the editors who were too "busy" to provide sources to begin with? DonIago (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on if you are either deletionist or inclusionist. A deletionist would say yes. But it's easier to be a delitionist. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec)Is the problem the tags or the lack of tag cleanup? That's either to fix the problems or remove the tag when it is no longer needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tools are good. We have a bunch of great tools at Help:Citation tools that automate referencing. We should encourage everybody to have a look here, and try at least one tool. It could help improve our quality if people used these wonderful tools. 64.40.54.64 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added fact to statement by Camelbinky, not because it is not sourced, but because I dispute the accuracy of the statement. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I recently ran across what I consider a particularly good example of this problem and would like to suggest a possible solution. Consider this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleanna_(play). The banner warning that it may require editing for "no cleanup reason" was applied in 2009! My point is that the proliferation of such tags and their sticking out there forever, weaken Wikipedia, make it seem like a collection of damaged goods. How about an automated removal of a specified subset of warning banners, requests for "cleanup" that lack specificity after a set period of time, say 2 years. Wikipedia likes to compare itself, proudly and with good reason, as if anything superior to published encyclopedias, but can anyone imagine a published encyclopedia peppered with caveats? It's in the very nature of Wikipedia that some articles will be better written than others. I agree that flagrant copying or biased writing should be flagged. But doesn't there come a time in the evolution of Wikipedia, that one accepts that this is the current state of the venture and that poorly sourced or misleading articles are excised or, alternatively, that the multiple provisos that pepper it be deleted. Are is there a form of snobbery going here. A kind of "wink-wink," we know that these articles don't meet our standard. The truth of the matter is that is so common to encounter warning banners, that the warning banner is becoming the "Wikipedia standard." Is this what anyone really wants? I don't think so. I see this has come up repeatedly under the title of "over-tagging," yet, so far as I can tell, little has been done about it.

Nor has anyone answered by question about statistics. Does anyone know what percentage of Wikipedia articles are free of warning banners and "citation needed" flags?

There's a form of denial going on here, in my opinion. In many conversations I've had with both highly educated and those who are less so, no one has ever seemed to believe "If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true." A reasonably intelligent person knows that an on-line editable encyclopedia may contain inaccuracies, as, frankly, so does the finest printed encyclopedia. Do the proliferation of warning banners and "citation needed" improve this situation. Obviously not if they're sticking out there forever.

So this is my proposal: A)  Automatic removal of specified warning banners under specified conditions (e.g. one's that are specific in their criticism be removed after two years.) and B)  Editors must clear 2 warning banners or "citation needed" or similar flags for every 1 they impose. MacRutchik (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Guglwa - गुगलवा
एक छोटा सा गाँव जिसके आस-पास 2 अन्य गाँव भी है। इन 3 गावों का समूह बरसों से उपेक्षित ही रहा है। संसाधनो के नाम पे यथार्थ मे कुछ नहीं लेकिन सरकारी दस्तावेजो मे सायद बहित कुछ हो । — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrajput8373 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * From Google translate:
 * Guglwa
 * Which is a small village near the two other villages. These three groups of villages has been neglected for years. But in reality nothing on resource names in official documents to be something Bhit Sayd.

This appears to be a question about an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Gugalwa. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit war problems - where do I go?
What noticeboard do I go to if I want to report an issue with edit warring/ disruptive editors? I have just had an edit war warning deleted from an editor's talk page - see - and I don't want this to escalate much further. Cheers doktorb wordsdeeds 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:3RN should have you covered. DonIago (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC canvassing
(Not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, but I can't see a noticeboard that deals with behavioural policy.)

If the admin closing an RFC feels that they can draw no clear conclusion on how to resolve an issue and suggests holding a second RFC to offer a multiple choice poll on the same material, is it appropriate to alert all of the participants in the first RFC to this new one, or (since the ideal RFC respondent is a passing stranger) would this be at the spammy "no significant connection to the topic at hand" end of WP:CANVAS? --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My first question would be why do you feel there is a need to? Most RFCs do just fine without a bunch of notices going out... I guess if you notify everyone in a non-consensus discussion, and the notice is truly neutrally worded, it would probably be ok. That said, its probably better to just let them notice, or not notice, the RFC on their own, absent a good reason. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a 14-day RFC that's nearly a week old and has yet to attract any outside input, perhaps because it being a poll makes it seem like it's aimed more at the involved editors. I noticed one editor leaving a talk page comment for someone he agreed with in the first RFC urging him to comment on the second one, and thought I might balance that by notifying everyone else, but was aware that this might be inappropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Red linked articles on disambiguous pages
I recently removed a few red linked articles on some disambiguous pages such as the one I did here to John Breen. These were reverted and I was pointed to MOS:DABRL. Which after reading is totally understandable but it still doesn't really make sense why we are doing it. It used to be that red links were frowned upon in DAB pages and generally the red linked articles were removed if the article didn't exist yet. That being said, back in the old days of Wikipedia when we had a lot of topics and articles that still needed to be created keeping red links on dab pages made some sense. But now that most of the major topics have pages, I think the utility to doing this is pretty much gone. I really think we should reconsider not including red links on disambiguous pages and only having links on disambiguous pages of articles we currently have. Any thoughts? Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. If the redlinked topic is notable, then I think there is value in informing the reader that there are multiple possible destinations, including one that we don't yet have an article on. If that happens to be the one they are looking for, its surely better then just sending them to the wrong article. Really, I don't see a reason not to have them, and I don't think you have really laid out a reason, other then that you disagree with the reason to have them, and that doesn't seem like enough. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what old days of Wikipedia are being referred to. In December 2003, an addition to the disambiguation guideline clarified when redlinks should be added to disambiguation pages based on this discussion. The guidance has been rephrased any number of times since then, but I think the general sense has not changed substantially. Various editors have differing interpretations as to the "likelihood" that an article will be written for any particular redlink, and as such some editors will include a redlink where other will delink the term but retain an entry with a blue link to an article that mentions the term. older ≠ wiser 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it used to be that you shouldn't add a red link for an article but you could add a redlink in the description of said article if that red link was also used in the article. To expand on my reasoning above per Monty, the DAB pages are a means to search Wikipedia topics and content, not a wish list of what we don't have yet. I do see some good reasoning behind having them in that someone might see the need and add it, but at the same time, I think its confusing to people who aren't regulers. I really dno't feel that strongly about the situation but I thought it was worth a quick discussion anyway. It just seems to me that using DAB pages to guide the readers to topics of what we have has more usefullness than including any and all articles that might someday have an article. I also admit that I don't think we should use the DAB pages as giant glossary of every like term. I think personally if the article is notable enough to be on a DAB pages then I would rather it was a red link than just a no link. Other wise it could be justified that every John Smith that every existed should be on the John Smith DAB page as a non linked entry. Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think the discussion at the time was that the redlinks were intended to help editors make consistent redlinks. In my experience, redlinks have always been accepted on disambiguation pages provided the usage was supported by an existing article. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

However, in the difflink example you've given, I'll note that you were correct to remove the red-link-only entry, and when Boleyn "reverted" you she actually added content at the same time, placing a bluelink within each of the items per the MOS:DABRL. So, pure redlinks are still (and always) discouraged, but dab-entries that have a bluelink can also have a redlink; and, Boleyn gets a small minnow, for using a confusing edit-summary! HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the impetus to cleanup, but disagree with the premise that "most [ambiguous! ;) ] of the major topics have pages" (per Systemic bias and Requested articles and WP:MISSING, etc), and disagree with the suggestion that we deprecate redlinks anywhere. Redlinks are still a beneficial component, in articles and in disambig-pages.
 * I disagree with the premise - it's still very much a reality that there are topics that are notable and are linked from other articles - but don't have articles. Listing them on disambiguation pages is a good idea and WP:DABRL should stay. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that we should eliminate red links or that we still have articles that need to be created. What I'm saying is that I don't think DAB pages are the place to put them and that I think DAB pages should be for helping our readers and users find the articles we have, not an all inclusive glossary of the term "John Smith" or whatever. As I said above though I really don't feel that strongly and it seems that I am the only one that feels this way. Thank you for the time. Kumioko (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I operate on the theory that, in time, all truly notable subjects will be written about. I'm fine with redlinks on dab pages for clearly notable subjects. If that happens to be the subject that the reader is searching for, at least the red link will inform them that a) this subject exists, and b) we don't yet have an article on it. bd2412  T 17:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a big fan of meaningful redlinks: it is mind boggling that they are so rare to find now. If there is a plausible, notable redlink for a disambiguation, it should be there by all means. First of all, the short blurb for the disambiguation is useful nonetheless to the reader. Second, it encourages the creation of content. -- cyclopia  speak!  17:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a major issue, but I'd support doing away with redlinks altogether. The scope for useful redlinks has become tiny and they may be slightly confusing for inexperienced users. Plus I think the frequency of badly-chosen redlinks is greater than the appearance of useful ones. That's not to say we can't have text other than lines for articles we do have on dab pages, just don't include redlinks. Formerip (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing away with red links will force one of two solutions. Tiny stubs or tiny sections in random articles for redirects.  I'm not sure that these are better solutions.  Also the implication that we have written sufficient articles to not need red links is a dubious assertion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are not many redlinks on WP, in the scheme of things, so getting rid of them would not lead to an explosion of stubs. Plus, after all, the purpose of redlinks is supposed to be to beget stubs. So if getting rid of them is what it takes...
 * I also think it is true to say that there are comparatively few articles left screaming to be written and that having redlinks to things of borderline notability (I appreciate that is not all that is left, but it is for the most part) doesn't serve the same purpose. It is unlikely that anyone is going to see that John Breen the Irish boxing coach doesn't have an article and immediately use the redlink to start one. Formerip (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Indeed. I've been proposing changing the red link inclusion criteria for years, to no avail. If only it were allowed to reference the red links (as we would any statement in article space) or at least to accompany them with interwiki links to existing articles on other Wikipedias, that would be a great improvement over the current practice and take care of bad/unhelpful redlinks at the same time (and largely prevent the tiny stubs problem Vegaswikian outlines). With the current wording, we have a ridiculous situation when a sourceable entry which happens not to be mentioned anywhere isn't allowed on a disambiguation page, yet an unsourced entry which happens to show up in another article for any random reason, is perfectly OK to include.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 14, 2013; 18:34 (UTC)


 * I also thought we had a guideline or policy that said to have one single blue link for each entry, and it turns out we do at WP:DABSTYLE. It appears we have conflicting advice on this matter with an editing guideline saying one thing and the MOS another. Solution: lock them in a room and have them fight to the death. Or reconcile the two pages through a consensus based process if you go in for that sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How do WP:DABSTYLE and MOS:DABRL conflict? They both agree that there should generally only be one blue link for each entry. That advice is mirrored in Template:Disambig editintro (the edit notice for all disambig pages). –Quiddity (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can editors upload pictures of themselves?
Can editors upload pictures of themselves to Wikipedia even if they are non-notable, only to be used at their User pages? I could not find guidance on this question in WP:Help. If the policy is stated somewhere, do you have a link to it, please? 169.133.253.21 (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an explicit policy about this, but in practice, yes, this is allowed (or at least tolerated). --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But the relevant copyright laws must still be observed, since unless it's a selfie the photo was taken by somebody else and is therefore copyrighted to the person who did take it. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect the law varies depending on where one is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless it's clearly a professional shot (such as if the editor is some notable figure, or it was done by an employer), it's really not worth being paranoid about copyright, because whoever took it is going to be a friend or family member in most circumstances and thus take it for that subject's sole benefit. Even if I hand my camera to a stranger in a public place to take a picture of me in front of some landmark or something, that stranger is not going to have any legitimate claim at restricting my use of the photo he took at my direction and then gave to me by handing my camera back before walking off anonymously. Even assuming the photographer retains full copyright, the subject has an implied, unrestricted license to use as he chooses, if you need the legalese. But absent good, specific reason, editor portraits are definitely not an area in which it makes sense to be obsessively proactive about copyright claims that are realistically never going to come. Just deal with the one complaint in ten thousand when it arises. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice analysis. I concur completely. The person who directs another to take their picture at a certain time and place and from a certain vantage point is controlling the scene enough to claim authorship in the work, and therefore has the power to release it into the public domain. bd2412  T 17:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt it would stand up to legal scrutiny. And there's a big difference between "Here's my camera, please [compose and] take a picture of me" and "I set up this camera, on my tripod, please press the cable release when I say so", with a large grey area in between. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You doubt what would stand up to legal scrutiny? postdlf (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The bit running from "Unless it's clearly..." to "... when it arises.". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With the typical "hey, buddy (or stranger on the street), take my picture" scenario, there is no way to confirm that the subject of the photograph did not completely set the scene, leaving nothing to be done but press the button. If it were ever to come down to "legal scrutiny", the claimant would bear the burden of proving that such an exchange had not occurred. Under the DMCA, Wikipedia as an entity bears no liability in this situation either way. bd2412  T 19:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's even regarding the more stringent question of authorship... An implied license is going to be pretty much impossible to rebut whenever someone takes your picture for you outside of a clearly commercial context, without express evidence to the contrary. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can upload a picture of yourself, but it is best to upload it to Wikimedia Commons at commons:Commons:Upload as any image uploaded to Wikipedia and not used in an article will likely be deleted. Also, it must be freely licensed so that anybody can redistribute it, etc. See commons:Commons:Licensing for the details. 64.40.54.20 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a photo of myself on my userpage, and no one's given me any trouble about it. I took it myself on a camera with a time release, so I'm also the copyright holder and have the right to release it. If someone else took the photo, you would have to have their permission to release it under a free license. We generally would allow that only for editors with some history of contribution though, Wikipedia is not Facebook. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Control Portal
Why Zidane was in Portal Algeria ? We need help for Portal and project, Thanks --Calise (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose because he's of Algerian descent. -- cyclopia  speak!  16:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Subportals and superportals
I have 2 questions related to subportals and superportals, which I couldn't find asked before in archives, so any guidance would be appreciated.

As the questions relate clearly to Portals policy, I have placed the questions there: Wikipedia_talk:Portal_guidelines.

I suggest we all reply there, below the questions, not here on this page - so as to keep responses in one place. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's yet offered an answer - be the first :) Trafford09 (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Protocol Question about User Conduct RFC
There is currently a user conduct Request for Comments that has been certified and in which outside points of view are being entered. Here is the issue. As some of the outside views partly agree and partly disagree, the certifiers of the RFC are removing some of the diffs (in one case explicitly stating that one of the issues is now rendered moot) and are editing some of the points to "tighten" the issues. Is this proper use of a user conduct RFC, or is this a form of gaming the system? I think that it is unfair to the editors proposing outside views, by making them refer to points that are no longer there, but I would appreciate an outside view on the outside views. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's handled the same as any other discussion-oriented page, which means that there's no prohibition on changing your comments, but if you make changes that would cause confusion because someone replied to that part of your comment, then you should use strikeout formatting or some other method of preserving the sense instead of simply removing it. In the event that you don't choose to preserve the sense, then later commenters are free to restore copies or otherwise explain the apparent mismatch in their own sections (because nobody at RFC/U is supposed to edit other people's comments, and that rule is enforced much more strictly than usual there). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Amending WP:POLITICIAN
Something of an issue has come up at WP:Articles for deletion/Jill K. McNulty. The article's subject was an intermediary appellate court judge in Illinois; however, there are concerns over whether or not she meets WP:N. I have noted that all intermediary appellate judges in states like Wisconsin have WP articles; this seems to indicate that they have been considered notable in the past. Unfortunately, the "politicians" section of WP:Notability (people) is woefully unhelpful when it comes to judges. Right now, based on criterion 1, only judges holding a "statewide/provincewide" office are allowed to have articles. This could be problematic for a variety of reasons:
 * In some states, like Wisconsin, the intermediary appellate court is a statewide court. Even though its judges sit in separate districts, their rulings affect the entire state.  So, despite their "jurisdiction" being over a particular district, they are a statewide court.
 * I'm not sure whether this is the case in all states or provinces; if not, this could mean that some appellate judges are notable, while others are not. This wouldn't be great.  So, should WP:POLITICIAN be amended so that all intermediary state/provincial appellate judges are considered notable?  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how we've always interpreted "statewide" in the past. Every time the issue has come up, only judges who sit on the state's supreme court are guaranteed articles. Judges that only made it to lower courts would have to demonstrably satisfy WP:GNG or some other applicable notability guideline. If all Wisconsin intermediate appellate judges presently have articles, it might be because they all pass GNG, it might be because no one has bothered to test them at AFD and so just a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF rather than an argument for keeping articles for other states' intermediate appellate judges. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to believe that only judges/justices on the highest state court(s)+ are "automatically" notable. Others would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, by demonstrating WP:GNG.  Note (+):  Both Texas and Oklahoma have two "highest" courts - their Supreme Courts only handle civil matters, and their Courts of Criminal Appeal handle criminal cases.   GregJackP   Boomer!   21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see also the draft notability guidelines at WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The draft is excellent. I do, however, feel that the mid-level appellate judges should be considered notable, as they are legally considered statewide courts in many cases.  Trial court judges should not be considered notable, unless they've received significant coverage for some other reason.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While that may work for smaller states, a state like California, Texas, or New York has way too many intermediate level appellate judges.  And in some of these states, their holdings can have state-wide precedencial value.  For example, in Texas if the petition history shows "pet. ref'd" or "writ ref'd", the appellate court decision is binding statewide.  But I don't think that makes the judge inherently notable.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't take that into consideration; that does make sense. In some cases, though, a court of appeals is considered a statewide court, so I would imagine that clarification would have to be worked into the policy.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although there's this, as well: all state legislators are apparently deemed notable. There are fewer appellate judges than legislators; indeed, in many states, appellate judges are also elected officials, and serve terms longer than legislators.  How are they any less notable than a state assemblyman?  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The number holding the position isn't relevant. The rationale behind guaranteeing articles for both state supreme court judges and state legislators is that they have reached the top tier of their respective branch of government. Intermediate appellate court judges have not, and it is believed that they are also far less likely to have a lot written about them. postdlf (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you on those specifics, but the general, top-tier officials rationale makes sense. If the draft becomes policy, would it be possible to make an "AfD exemption" for existing appellate judge articles?  If not, it's not a huge concern of mine.  In addition, what would it take to make the draft a policy/guideline?  There's one on musicians, I believe, so why not judges?  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Account Creator user right
There is currently a request at WP:AN to remove the Account Creator right from several editors, based on an RFC found at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_4. There was sufficient ambiguity about some of the terms used there that I wanted to request clarification from the community about what the standards for removal should be. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Account Creation Interface
Editors who have been granted the Account Creator right for work with the Account Creation Interface should have it revoked when they lose access to the interface

Support
 * 1) Support: The entire purpose of this right is the ability not be obstructed by limits set on most users to create accounts.  If they ACC member is not creating accounts due to inactivity or suspension or what-have-you, then they don't need the right anymore.  Should they become active again in the project, then they should be able to earn the right back.  All of the "other stuff" allowed by this right are perks, and should not stand as a reason to have the privilege alone.  If all that they want the right for is to do these extra things, I suggest to them that they put in an RfA as I'm sure that being trusted enough for this right would likely assist (if they were using it correctly) them in there RfA attempt (or sink them if they weren't). Technical 13 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support the entire reasoning for granting the right (the pre-requisite) is that they're either an active member on ACC, or part of an educational program. If you're not hitting a threshold for creating accounts - why do you need the flag?  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 16:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - The Account Creator flag is for just that, anyone needing editnotices edited, use edit protected or a new template can be created, edit-notice or something, or open a RfA and edit your own.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 02:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support for reasons already elucidated here. Account Creator is Account Creator - if you aren't using it to create accounts, then you don't need it.  If there is really that much demand for a user right that allows editing editnotices and overriding the title blacklist, a new one should be created that grants the tboverride permission but not the account creation ratelimit override or the antispoof override permissions.  Granting Account Creator for the sole purpose of allowing editing editnotices is an unnecessary security risk.  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 10:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support The description of Account Creator requires active account creation. The flag is not blacklist overrider and page notice editor. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Comments
 * 1) Oppose, unless their ACI access was revoked for abuse.  We trusted them enough to give them the right in the first place, these aren't random untrusted members of the community.  If their ACI access was revoked for abuse, then I would support removing not only +acctcreator, but any other abusable user right they hold. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Inactive adminitsrators are desysoped regularly despite being trusted members of the community. The Account Creator flag contains two user permissions that are highly abusable, the account creation ratelimit override and the antispoof override.  If one is no longer involved in a project that requires mass creation of user accounts, why do they need the Account Creator flag?  Much like the procedural desysoping if inactive sysops, it's a matter of security, not distrust.  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 10:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * -clears throat- Rollback is highly abuseable, it's not revoked based on inactivity. In fact, both rollback and reviewer include extra permissions relating to AFTv5 (including hiding things from public view), should we remove those if the only reason I use either right now is for that? ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is gramatically unclear, so I'm afraid you will have to clarify before I can properly answer it. But I will answer your first sentence with a question; why is sysop removed for inactivity?  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 09:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If I only use the "rollback" or "reviewer" right for viewing and/or hiding AFTv5 feedback, should I have those rights removed? I mean, rollback could be highly abused (by mass rollbacking things). ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An admin stays active by editing not by using his tools. Agathoclea (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: First off, I'm not sure what the point of removing rights is if they're not being abused. Second this proposal doesn't take into consideration the use of the right. An editor can still be using the right without using the ACC tool. — Bility (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bility - read the section you're !voting in - this is the section for where the right is given only because of the users activity with ACC - educational use is below.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 18:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention anything about educational use. — Bility (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are only two valid reasons to hold the Account Creator flag - ACC use and Educational use. See the flag description.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. What's the harm in having the flag if you're not abusing it? Eric   Corbett  21:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The accountcreator userright and the ACC interface are (almost) completely seperate - getting ACI access is not a guarantee or a reason to ask for the ACC userright. Likewise, people can obtain the ACC userright without being involved in the ACI (education program, or other reasons where they'd need to create accounts). Furthermore, this has the side effect of allowing them to override some blacklists (titles) and edit page notices - something that they should be able to be trusted to do. If this is going to be done, a better question to ask is "should the ACC userright and the ACI access be one and the same?" ~ Charmlet -talk- 02:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. If they did something to violate their trust at ACC, we'd probably already have grounds to revoke their accountcreator flag. If not, then they're still trustworthy (see my oppose at ). Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. No evidence has been offered that  demonstrates that  this long-standing  arrangement  has been the cause of any issues, so  this is a solution looking  for a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose The ACI seems like an attempt at more bureaucracy (referencing the fact that within the tool they have their own hierarchy of admins). Permissions on Wikipedia should not be linked to any outside tool. The tool is a great idea but is just that, a third party tool. Mike (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) *The reason for that is that since it's on toolserver, it is not technically (i.e. code-side) related to Wikipedia account rights in any way. The coding is nowhere near similar to MediaWiki at all... etc. etc. ~ Charmlet -talk- 21:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. outside tools and our userrights are independant. Agathoclea (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose This seems like pointless enforcement. If there is any use then it is an advantage for the person to keep it. There are other ways to get requests for account creation. If no damage is caused, then there is no hurry to remove it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose They could have discovered, and made themselves useful with, the "secondary" rights in the mean time. No point of sending someone to WP:RFPERM in such a case, for a permission they already have. Or they could become active at ACC again, resulting in some unnecessary back and forth in WP user rights. --Pgallert (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Mike and Graeme. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose I am aware of an instance of this causing a major problem to a user who had the right and was threatened with losing the right. Do not take away userrights as a matter of procedure. If anything, ask users to voluntarily relinquish the right or give them fair notice.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - The wording of the previous RfC was too ambiguous, as a number of the comments on it indicates. There was nothing wrong with the pre-RfC status quo and I see no reason why any change needed to be made. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the fact that a significant number of editors use a loophole in one of our userrights to perform largely uncontroversial tasks for the benefit of the project that they would otherwise need the full sysop bit for might suggest that these specific rights ought to be unbundled anyway. A lot of the comments arguing that accountcreator should be for people who actively create accounts misses the point. The fact is that the right has organically developed into a tool for a few editors who genuinely need and use its functionality outside of account creation. Could we not just rename it and allow both active account creators and other people who have a legitimate use for it to have the right? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Educational Institutions
Editors at educational institutions granted the right should have it revoked if they have not created enough accounts to hit the limit in a certain time period.
 * Support (please indicate a time period)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose unless they are totally no longer active in outreach work.  I may not hit the cap very often, but when I do, it could really screw up an outreach event if I didn't have it.  I'm sure I could find an admin/acctcreator within ten minutes, but in a situation where I may only have an hour, that would make the entire outreach event significantly less effective than it would've been.  There's no harm in leaving acctcreator on the account of people involved in educational outreach. It's also worth noting that in some educational settings it may be necessary to create more similar user names than would be possible without acctcreator, depending on the anonymity policy of the institution. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Although I think this one a finer line.  I think that if they are actively creating accounts, the right shouldn't be taken away regardless if they are creating "enough" accounts to reach the threshold or not.
 * 3) Oppose: Projects with institutions aren't always scheduled so the right may be needed at any time. Even scheduled projects, like a class that recurs every semester, might skip or might have intervals longer than any specified time period. — Bility (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Seems a bit petty. Eric   Corbett  21:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. ~ Charmlet -talk- 02:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. There might be a year between subsequent outreach activities, there might be several occasions in a row where attendance is low or people already have accounts, and the right might be revoked on the very day when I'm on the road to a place where I need it, and cannot react. I also don't see any harm keeping this minute privilege, and no indication that it has ever been misused. --Pgallert (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - The only time an Account Creator flag granted for educational purposes should be revoked is when the user in question is no longer involved at all with the educational institution. -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 10:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * If I understand that correctly, just because the accountcreator hasn't reached the limit personally, does not mean those accounts could have been created. For instance, if I have seven people behind one IP and let six create accounts themselves, then I will have to exercise my right only on number seven and have only one creation in my log, but that account could not have been created without my help, from that IP. --Pgallert (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Editors who have the right for other reasons
Editors who have never used the right for Account Creation should have it revoked even if they are active in the community and have used the right for other purposes without causing problems.

Support
 * 1) Support: As I said above, no-one should have the "Account Creator" right "solely" for the "other perks" it offers.  If that is all they want to use it for, there is no reason they shouldn't put in an RfA and get the rights to do such things correctly. Technical 13 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever, er, read an RfA? RfA itself is a pretty big reason not to put in an RfA... Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) STRONG Support If you're not creating accounts using the account creation flag you do not need the right.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you equally argue that an administrator who's never edited an abuse filter ought to have that right removed as well? Even though perhaps all they do is to view the hidden filters? Eric   Corbett  00:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That has no validity to my argument Eric. The flag itself is called the account creator flag. The use of it is self implied. If individuals want to use the individual permissions for a purpose other than account creation, perhaps a new flag needs to be made.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the name then why not propose a different one you feel more comfortable with? Eric   Corbett  02:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about the name, it's also about the permissions. Why do you need the account creation ratelimit override permission and the antispoof override permission if you have absolutely no involvement with any account creation processes?  Those are highly abusable permissions and this presents an unnecessary security risk.  So, I'll answer your question with a question: Why don't you propose a new user group that only grants the tboverride permission (which would allow editing editnotices, etc.) but not any of the account creation-related permissions?  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 10:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support - If you have absolutely nothing to do with account creation, holding the Account Creator flag is an unnecessary security risk as this grants two highly abusable permissions: Overriding the account creation ratelimit, and overriding AntiSpoof. But, seeing that being able to edit editnotices and override the titleblacklist is useful outside of account creation, I propose that a new user group be created that only grants the tboverride permission, but not any of the account creation-related permissions, therefore closing the security hole.  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 10:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:, one of the biggest problems with accepting submissions on a technical level is salted page names or redirects that need to be moved over. Would a better solution be to add the <tt>tboverride</tt> permission to <tt>Reviewer</tt> be a better option? Technical 13 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're changing permissions, a better solution would be to create a new group instead of randomly adding  to an unrelated group. And, at the same time, we could change   to use   instead of the full  . Anomie⚔ 00:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Again the description of Account Creator requires active account creation. The flag is not blacklist overrider and page notice editor. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Its nothing personal but if they aren't using it, then they don't need to have it. It should be the same way for other rights. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Comments
 * 1) Oppose. By other reasons I assume you mean stuff like editing page notices.  If an editor is otherwise well trusted and wants to have access to acctcreator just so that they can edit pagenotices, I honestly don't see it as a big deal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what the question was seeking to address. While the other RFC would seem to prohibit new grants of the right for those purposes, it does not address what should happen to those who already have it. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Administrators have several rights that many of them never use, so what's different here? Eric   Corbett  21:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What is different here is there is no community led RfAC to get "Account Creator" right. If they want to have several rights they don't want to use just so they can edit editnotices, then they should put in an RfA and go for admin. Technical 13 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that anyone holding this "right" has abused it? Eric   Corbett  00:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: No reason to remove the right if it's being used and isn't being abused. It's also currently the only way to get editnotice editing rights without becoming an admin. — Bility (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ... which is the only thing I've ever used it for. Eric   Corbett  21:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that if it is not being used to create accounts, then it is being abused. So, that being the case, seems to agree that it should be removed if they are not using it to create accounts. Technical 13 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are your beliefs relevant, particularly when they have no basis in common sense or logic? Eric   Corbett  22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On the flip side, while choosing to ignore the fact that you are attacking me claiming I lack any common sense or logic, why would my beliefs be any less relevant? Bottom line, if you are only using the right for the perks and not to create accounts for which it was designed, then you are abusing the right and should have it removed. Technical 13 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out that your position is illogical and contrary to common sense. Eric   Corbett  23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice, you figured out how to compose a loaded question without a question mark. — Bility (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I honestly don't see why this bothers people. As far as I know, the people who got this right specifically to edit page notices were given it by people who knew that that's what it was for.  I don't think that could by any reasonable logic be called "abusing the right".  — Soap — 04:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Using a tool you have been given by the standard process is not abuse - period. Thus, there is no reason to remove it. If you hate it, start an RfC to remove the tboverride right from the set - as it's the one (iirc) that allows editnotice editing. However, saying that someone who uses a right they are given through standard process is an abuser is wrong. ~ Charmlet -talk- 21:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Not using something that you were trusted with at one point doesn't make you any less trusted with it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose . No evidence that  this has been the cause of abuse. If  it  ain't  broke, why  fix it? FWIW, years ago  I  applied for the ACC right  specifically  to  be able to  edit and create edit  notices because I needed to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose If a tools is useful for its side effects, and the users are not causing problems with it, then why not let them use it as a net benefit to the Wikipedia? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Using the "secondary" rights of a set of permissions helps the 'pedia. Of course, if that secondary right is being abused then the permission should be removed, even if the editor actively created accounts. --Pgallert (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per others, esp Eric. Use of this user right to edit edit notices is not abuse. This user right isn't being handed out to sock puppeteers that are going to create hundreds of accounts. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - This seems to suggest we remove it for no apparent reason from people who do very useful work; this is creeping bureaucracy which will actively harm Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't go removing it from until a migration path is in place. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think AnomieBOT II could be an exception to the rule for the fact that it is a bot and its master is an administrator. So, there is no additional security risk there. Technical 13 (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Worst case is it has to become an adminbot (though hopefully it doesn't need to). Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note this would require a new BRFA (a "tboverride" group with a subset of the rights in the existing group could probably be justified without a new BRFA). In either case, I'd want to avoid the task being down for bureaucratic reasons between when the accountcreator group was removed and when the replacement group (be it sysop or a new "tboverride" group) was added. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I wasn't an admin when the bot was approved. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of the Account Creator userright
If all three points above fail (which it looks like they will at this time), I propose renaming the userright something that no longer directly ties it to account creation since that isn't the purpose of the right anymore. Perhaps something like "Blacklist Override" or something of that nature? -- FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 07:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Cropped photos should link to the original uploads, not the cropped versions
I was looking at today's Main Page and a photo from Selected_anniversaries/August_19 caught my eye; as presented there:



Now this presentation has a problem that I won't address here (should have used a higher-resolution picture at File:Aphrodite Anadyomene from Pompeii face.jpg) --- what I want to focus on is that it is, as stated in the file description, cropped from a larger image File:Aphrodite Anadyomene from Pompeii.jpg. But you would have to carefully follow the file description through to Commons then read to the bottom to see that. This makes it much harder for the casual reader to click on the picture and see the full portrait, and also adds an extra layer of indirection where attribution or licensing could potentially be lost or confused.

Therefore, I propose that as a matter of style, nearly all cropped photos appearing on the Main Page, and even nearly all cropped photos appearing in articles, should use the link parameter to send the reader straight to the original file, e.g.



This should exclude only files in which the precise location of the crop is not important, being done not for editorial reasons but to convey information, such as the contents of a particular 1-degree square of latitude and longitude. Wnt (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is workable, particularly if non-free content enters the picture - we need separate file info and (if non-free) rationales for the crop just as we would need for the large size for attributions and for NFC policy. This does suggest that the template about the image being a crop should be much larger and clearer about where to find the original uncropped image (assuming it is on en.wiki or commons). --M ASEM (t) 20:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-free images are not allowed on the main page. Formerip (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wnt suggested this apply to "even nearly all cropped photos appearing in articles". I agree that the problem is less an issue if we are restricted to free, but there is the matter of proper attribution routes. --M ASEM (t) 22:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, it's not allowed to keep Fair Use images on Wikipedia just to have a larger crop available - a file has to be in use or get deleted. Which means that there shouldn't be any case in which you can link from a cropped version to an uncropped version of a Fair Use photo.  Of course, you could specifically exclude them anyway, but you shouldn't have to. Wnt (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can crop a non-free down to a point where what is left is free (see File:Whaam!_text_balloon.jpg, which I initially thought otherwise). Irregardless, if we consider only free images, linking the crop to the non-cropped version loses the ability to check the attribution of the cropped version, which is what is necessary per CC-BY-SA. --M ASEM  (t) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Imposing a file crop, on its own, is an obvious procedure that should not create a new copyright, so this attribution should be unnecessary. I mean, can you imagine someone suing in court that you've infringed his genius choice of crop of an image for a WP article?  When anyone is free to upload a new version with a slightly different crop if they like it better anyway? Wnt (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A slight concern about legal action
I've noticed that blocks imposed for threatening legal action read like this:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

I am a bit concerned about the last part. I don't really think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to block people for taking legal action. Don't get me wrong, threatening it should be a reason sufficient for blocking, as it is disruptive and menacing in its own way. But punishing a person on Wikipedia for exercising his or her rights as a citizen seems a bit retaliatory. I am referring to the phrase "or taking legal action" in the block notice. Any thoughts? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the policy-based reason is that legal issues always complicate things; people pursuing legal action shouldn't edit Wikipedia at the same time, as it will likely cause nothing but trouble. In theory, it's not punishment for pursuing legal action per se so much as it is protecting Wikipedia and its users (including the person in question) from further entanglements.  In practice, *shrugs* ionno.  (Incidentally, we aren't prohibited by law or anything from blocking someone for that reason.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy in WP:No legal threats seems reasonable enough to me in this regard: "It is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels...you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels...".
 * I would have thought that the first advice of any lawyer to somebody taking legal action against Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor would in any case be to stop editing themselves - but I can also see that from the POV of Wikipedia as an institution, allowing them to continue editing while an action is pending could open up problems. (E.g. - and IANAL - it might be argued that it was an implicit endorsement of their edits.) Barnabypage (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think WP:DICK applies in this situation, as the real point of the policy is to stop people from making legal threats in posts just for the sake of stirring up the pot. It was a problem for a few individuals prior to this policy being enacted as sometimes a few people will get desperate and pull the lawsuit/legal action threat when nerves get frayed and pushed into a corner because they are on the losing side of an argument.


 * I've seen that happen outside of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects so commonly now that I'm used to it mainly as somebody having a little bit of bravado and usually challenge them as "make my day" kind of thing. Still, you are a real jerk to be making those kind of threats in the first place, where it is assumed that the kinds of people making these threats would be better off not even participating on Wikipedia.


 * This said, real threats and things that could be actionable from a legal perspective such as libel, slander, death threats, and other similar kinds of attacks (mostly covered under WP:NPA as well even if they don't rise to that extreme level) certainly deserve consideration. I would hope that if a situation like that arises where a Wikipedian feels a genuine need to engage in legal actions, that once the issue has been resolved in some manner that they can feel welcome to participate once again here as any other user should.  I would imagine such extreme situations would be dealt with by ArbCom in some fashion where exceptions and perhaps editing restrictions of some kind could be appropriately made to encourage continued participation instead of a knee jerk automatic account suspension without appeal.  On the other hand, people who are jerks and don't respect others should be shown the door and dismissed.  --Robert Horning (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How many people have been blocked for actually taking legal action and not just threatening it? I can't even think of an anecdote of it happening. I'm sure it does on occasion, but I wonder how frequently. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the majority of blocks under WP:NLT are for threatened legal action, not actual legal action - but I don't know that we have statistics on that point. An aside, we do also have Don't overlook legal threats, which talks about the other side of the coin - and may be worth reading as well, for perspective. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I should be clear, though - some editors have been blocked due to actual litigation. Since the idea is that actual, for reals litigation needs to take place off-wiki, you'll likely be hard-pressed to find details on-wiki, even after the fact. And that's how it should be, I think - even if you're one of the parties to litigation involving wikipedia, just discussing the situation on-wiki can complicate that litigation. Now, once the legal issues are done, editors can be unblocked - usually subject to some sort of restrictions, other times not, and those restrictions can be lifted later on. Some even edit quite productively once they come back. And that's as it should be as well. Hope this helps. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this also gives us a useful way to get rid of people who have joined Wikipedia because of a pre-existing real-world dispute. It's not just about editors suing each other.  It's about someone suing his neighbor or an organization or an employer, and then coming to Wikipedia to make sure the whole world knows about his lawsuit.  This is a get-out-of-hell-free card for the entire community with respect to POV-pushing newbies with massive COIs.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC in progress at WT:Civility
A two-part policy RFC is in progress at Wikipedia Talk:Civility. The first part is whether the policy should have language added about the combination of permanence and immediacy associated with electronic communication. The second part is whether the policy should recommend that long-term civility issues be dealt with by the ArbCom rather than at the noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding extra cover arts in album and singles articles
Recently, I added extra covers of Madonna singles in Material Girl, Like a Virgin, etc. Not just that, but also U2 singles, like The Unforgettable Fire (song) and With or Without You. However, they were reverted because adding these covers would violate WP:NFCC's minimal usage and contextual significance criteria. Even the extra image (the right-side up one) of Bedtime Stories (Madonna album) that I added was removed. If that's the case, this would affect images of albums, like Tron (soundtrack), In My Tribe and Talk Talk (song). But I can't obey just one-image rule; that's unfair to other cover arts that were released in specific regions and in later time. Look at ...Baby One More Time (album). But if we must abide to just one-image rule (or standard practice), should we just use very early edition of the album or single, or very early English edition of non-English album/single (if available)? I discussed this particularly with, who suggested another venue, like WP:SONGS. However, I think this venue is my best spot. --George Ho (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to drop a note at WT:NFC or move it there as a better venue. Werieth (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...but wait until you've come up with a better argument than "that's unfair to other cover arts [sic]"... postdlf (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When I said ...Baby One More Time (album), I was examplifying use of images without need of commentary. There are two different cover arts, and I don't see how using a different extra cover of album or single without commentary would violate WP:NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the basis for including cover art when it is not the subject of commentary by reliable sources is to use it as visual identification, it makes sense to allow various alternate covers as these would be just as significant for identification of the work.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do we need 20 covers for the same thing? we dont allow it for books, movies or anything else. The primary cover should be used. We are not a directory WP:NOTDIR and we shouldnt be displaying every cover. Werieth (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't exaggerate. No one added 20 covers of the same thing. I saw three at most in one article. I doubt there are many cases, if any, where there would be such a large number of alternate covers.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not that far from the truth, Ive seen articles with as many as 12 covers. I can easily get a list of a dozen music articles with at least 6 covers already in the page. Werieth (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(For better argument) I can't let readers assume there is only one album cover for an album, like ...Baby One More Time and Tron. That would be misconception and detrimental to the knowledge of two different covers. Same goes for singles, yet others argue that adding different covers without critical commentary violate minimal use criterion. Why is one enough besides following policy and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You could say the same thing about books, the augment is that most things have multiple covers. (Books, movies, albums, TV show box art, and others) readers already know that most things have multiple overs, and that they know that fact. We only display the primary image for visual identification. Why does one need to show every cover for every version of A Tale of Two Cities? There isnt a need, thus we dont display them. Again your argument lacks cohesion. Werieth (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of a cover art image is specifically because when discussing the given work, the cover art provides implicit concepts of how the work was marketed and branded by the publisher. In some cases, this actually may be critically important (like the cover of Abbey Road), but most of the time, it is never mentioned in sources. Thus, we allow for one cover art image to be used to identify the work for this purpose.  In some very limited cases, where there are different cover arts in major regions for an album, then it usually is also appropriate, though the Album project - which is generally good to avoid extraneous use - can probably provide more rules. But for minor regions, or separate editions in the same region, the additional cover art, unless the subject of discussion, is not adding any more to identify, marketing, or branding of the work, and thus is extraneous and fails NFCC#8.  We are not here to document every single cover variation, particularly if no one else outside of music vendors has done this. --M ASEM  (t) 20:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, besides home countries, which other overseas nation/region is a major region? --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of asking how many can I include? ask which why am I including it and why must I include it? Werieth (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do we must assumes that most, if not all, readers know many different covers of singles in the pre-Compact Disc boom era (or pre-1980s)? I add these images to avoid common misconception that there is only one front image of the album. Why else should I add? Only if sources discuss an image? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One does not need to know what every cover looks like, (see WP:NOTDIR) knowing that there are multiple covers should be sufficient. Werieth (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If no other sources explain that there is multiple cover art, then it is not our place to even make that statement, less justify it. --M ASEM  (t) 21:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If we can't keep multiple images, then which ones must be kept? Images of first editions sold to home countries or first widely available edition, like of Touch (Sarah McLachlan album), The Kick Inside, and ...Baby One More Time? Should this apply to albums and singles? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is nearly always the case that the main image should be the cover as first published in the country where the work was made as the infobox/image for identification. Any other image, you'll have to see what the Album project has suggested. --M ASEM (t) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ALBUMS doesn't say much about non-free images other than not using them in discographies. Neither does WP:SONGS. --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay it was over at Infobox album, the specific wording under Advanced Usage, Album art, is : "If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, per WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included." --M ASEM (t) 21:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Per what Masem wrote. We aim to show readers the dominant way the work was marketed and branded by the publisher.  When there is a different dominant image associated with an album, either in a key territory for the album, or that has replaced a previous dominant image associated with the album, then to achieve the aims set out in the footnote to NFCI it is appropriate to show both images. This is reflected in the guidance at Infobox album, the essence of which has been run past WT:NFC several times:"If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, per WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included."
 * The Britney Spears cover was considered at WP:FFD in January 2010 and upheld on these grounds. On the other hand covers which are minor variants of each other; "special release" covers (such picture discs or special dubs), that are not and never were the dominant cover for the album; and versions used in less significant markets -- none of these are appropriate.  WP takes seriously the importance  of using NFC only sparingly (and to be seen to be sparing in its use) for the reputation of the project as a whole.  Jheald (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A suggestion for the Albums project and possible NFC ppl is to create a case book of examples when lines should be drawn for alt covers, particularly focusing on "similar image" type comparisons. --M ASEM (t) 21:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Found the old discussion, whose file was horribly deleted against consensus's wishes and then resurrected with different name. As for the template guideline, I don't think anybody goes there. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look more closely, you'll find the file was retained at FFD, but then deleted about a year later by, apparently freelancing. Jheald (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tagged that suggestion in the template documentation for dispute. Since it's neither a policy nor a guideline, I used "under discussion". --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Masem and Jheaald wrote above in that current consensus for alternate images on album articles are that the alternate cover has to be significantly different from the original, widely distributed and/or replacing the original would pass the criteria for identification or an alternate image that is the subject of sourced critical commentary about the image would also be acceptable. The two images you had in Material Girl would seem to pass this criteria for identification, but it seems weird to me to have the European cover image as the main image since the American cover image was the first one released and is the home country of the artist.


 * Current consensus for single covers in section infoboxes to represent notable cover versions are that they pass WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." These covers are used for identification in the context of critical commentary as to how the cover versions are notable cover versions. Since WP:SONGCOVER says notable cover versions should be covered in the article about the song and not have its own article, but if they had their own articles, the images would be acceptable there, so they are acceptable in the sections of the song article. Aspects (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can anybody explain how adding one cover of each artist's rendition of the same song violates WP:NFCC? The Loco-Motion mess is an example of misusing the policy by removing front covers without proper reasoning. And I don't think omission of such covers will help matters, unless you want to use a free image of the artist who rendered the old song. And why should covers of They Long to Be Close to You be removed? --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is zero discussion about the cover art for a published work, the only reason we allow one cover image for the implicit marketing and branding of the published work. You only need one image for that if that's otherwise not discussed in the article, and hence why secondary covers are not included. If there is additional discussion about alternate covers, then there's a reasonable likelihood to include them but that absolutely is needed. --M ASEM  (t) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that, as noted above, if a different cover has been dominant at a different time or place, we consider that those covers too are part of the understanding that our article should convey to the reader; and, as Aspects notes above, if there is a substantial section about a notable cover version, that cover is also considered generalyy appropriate. Jheald (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * True, and that would be a case where in terms of the worldwide release, the alternate cover would had as wide a release as the base cover. (in terms of units). That's a reasonable fair allowance if the use of an undiscussed cover is for branding/marketing. -M ASEM  (t) 00:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In general, I agree that if there have been multiple covers of an album it can be reasonable to use 2 or 3 of them to illustrate the album. The whole point of allowing album covers is so people can associate the album with the art associated with it.  If different art was used significantly (especially over time or location) it makes sense to have the art in the article. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the purpose of including album covers. It is to providing idea of branding and marketing about the work, not for help the reading identify the work. That's why no, its not always appropriate to include 2 or 3 covers. At most 1 is readily justified, and any more need to meet specific requirements. --M ASEM  (t) 00:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of your opinion but I disagree.  Even for branding and marketing, it's not at all clear that somehow 1 is exactly enough.  Hobit (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The other problem is the slippery slope issue - if 2 is OK, how about 3? or 5? Whilst in these digital times cover art is clearly becoming less important, we have in the past had articles where a work was issued with a lot of functionally different covers.  (Incidentally, something which often flies under the radar is a similar problem with music clips in album articles). Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If zero sources discuss the branding and marketing of the published work, then even one image is pushing NFCC. We're not hear to document every variation that might exist in a work's cover art. --M ASEM  (t) 20:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How long should I wait for an admin to respond?
(I hope this is where my question should be posted?)

On Aug 14, 2013 I contacted an admin in regards to a speedy deletion that he performed. He has not responded yet, but my message is still on his page, and I can see thru his contributions that he has been active in the six days that have elapsed.

I realize admins also have a life, and I am sure this admin is dealing with more important issues than mine. My question is: what should I do next to solve my own problem? Thanks in advance for a reply here. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The admin gave his/her reasons when deleting the page:
 * CSD G11 - the page was spam/advertisement
 * CSD A7 - the page was an article about a real person, but didn't indicate any reason why the person may be notable.
 * If you tried to contact the admin, and the admin has been active and yet hasn't responded to your request, I'd recommend, in your original section, sayuing something like "I'm waiting for an answer"; if an other 2-3 days go by, and the admin does other edits (after more than 10 minutes from when you ask) but doesn't answer you, go to Deletion review, where others can give their opinions on whether or not the deletion was appropriate.
 * In this case, you left the note on your own talk page, not the deleting admin's.
 * עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Try leaving a message on the admin's own talk page as mentioned by Od Mishehu. If the admin doesn't respond after a couple days there, your next stop would be Requests for undeletion. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 17:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies; I cannot explain how I came not to action this. I will go to it as soon as I post this comment. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 19:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just an update - the discussion about this specific Speedy Deletion mystery can see at:User_talk:Ottawahitech. However I am stilll curious to find out if there are any general guidelines that editors should be aware of about how long a wait to expect to hear back from admins and what to do next if no response is received. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In general, use common sense. Admins are volunteers and regular human beings, just like every other editor on the project; most have interests and obligations beyond Wikipedia that will demand a share of their attention.  They will, from time to time, miss notifications on their talk pages; if you think you've been inadvertently ignored, then a quick *ping* to draw attention to your post is not unreasonable.  (For non-urgent matters like this one, that *ping* should come after at least a day or two has elapsed – and after you've confirmed from the contributions that they have had a chance to see your original message – not after ten or twenty minutes.)  If that doesn't work, then you can consider escalating the matter to the appropriate noticeboard.  Depending on the situation, that might be WP:HD, WP:VP, WP:DRV, WP:AN, or some other bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. There isn't a hard and fast policy on this; the urgency of different situations and the circumstances which surround them vary far to widely to set specific time limits.  Broadly speaking, if you approach an admin about his actions politely and in good faith, usually a failure to respond results from an unintentional error (overlooked or forgetten message, etc.) or unexpected absence (intended to reply, but got tied up in real life) rather than a malicious attempt to ignore you.   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have apologized, and have dealt with the matter; albeit not, perhaps, to the complete satisfaction of the querant. In mitigation I will point out that the initial query was posted on the querant's talk page, although I accept that a message about it was posted to my page. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Anthony, nothing I said aimed to chastise you or your handling of this specific case; I was offering a response to the general question asked. As a further general note, I agree that there's something rather counterintuitive about using a 'talkback' template when one is trying to open a dialog, rather than posting a reply. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On the question of whether someone has had a chance to see a message, I'm very happy with User:PleaseStand/User info. When you go to a user page or user talk page, it tells you how long it's been since the person's last edit.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems weird
Kraft Foods just became a brand new company according to our article. Are these usually split to Kraft (pre-2012) and Kraft (present) type articles? I don't really care but it just seems weird to have an old company with a one year history.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's weird. I modified this to help guide readers to the proper article. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks easier than a split. I also think it resolves the issue as to where readers can be directed. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) 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, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC request Re: Chelsea Manning
User:Canoe1967 suggested, and I agree, that there is a serious issue with regard to policy on Chelsea Manning's name (for that matter, a violent edit war) that should be resolved centrally through an RfC. The matter is a front-page issue for Wikipedia after all. Equilibrium007 (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a WP:RM discussion underway at Talk:Chelsea Manning. I would prefer to let it play out. Six more days of back and forth there will do no harm to Wikipedia in the long run. bd2412  T 02:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are also issues with edit wars in the 50+ linked articles. The sources are older and some editors wish to have the links use the text Bradley according to sources at the time. Others are edit warring them to Chelsea. Is there a policy on whether to use the name from the older sources?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a policy. For company articles I have tried to use the name at the time and let redirects in place address the problem.  Hard redirects fail when there is a second or third or forth change.  I believe that this maintains historical accuracy since the new company name was not available at the time. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright
Hi,

I am writing a book for resale and want to include some images/photos.

I noticed that I would be able to use freely the images on Wikipedia. On the website for it mentions that I can freely use these as long as I add the copyright statement - "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled 'GNU Free Documentation License'. "

What does "A copy of the license is included in the section entitled 'GNU Free Documentation License'" mean? I have no idea what this means and cannot find any explanation.

God bless.

Best wishes, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Wardrop (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that Reusing Wikipedia content is supposed to have the answer you want. The link there to commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia is probably the most helpful page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

need more broader consensus for certain issue that may need a new guideline
I've been discussing this issue for a while, and although it may seem like WP:IDHT, I assure you the issue is bigger than what you can see at first glance.

Just to summarize:
 * Andy Mabett proposed an alternate headline for the tracklist template that would have two parameters: artist and title for data granularity purposes. Here: template talk:track listing
 * Initially I did not agree for an issue so subjective.
 * I then offered a compromise to make an alternate headline that offered disc, side, title, and version parameter so it can offer data granularity but no "artist" parameter as it would never be needed in the headline and only add redundancy. This discussion began in the new "Compromise" subsection.

That's where the trouble about consensus (or localconsensus) starts to come in as multiple editors begin to ignore key points and when I ask questions about core issues. The cycle of the discussion has been mostly the same. I ask the very relevant questions, their ignored, after an appropriate ammount of time of these questions being ignored Andy Mabett attempts to assume consensus.

And at this point we're in the "post rfc" section and only one other editor was able to see through these debate tactics. I would like some outside perspective on this. And reason why I bring it here is so that this could potentially offer new forms of guideline. Specifically with templates aiming to gain data granularity for microformats and how not every situation is WP:IDHT simply because its one editor (now 2 in this discussion) is wanting some answers and majority refusing to answer.

I personally see a huge gap between editors and how plicy affects them.Lucia Black (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)