Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 146

RfC: Revisiting the perennial US/U.S. debate
Should MOS:US (WP:Manual of Style): 00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Retain its current wording (after some reverting), arrived at several years ago, and stable until October 2017, and stable since then?
 * 2) Use the newest (recently reverted) version, implemented in a lengthy October 2017 consensus discussion?
 * 3) Revert to its even earlier wording, which was stable though the early 2010s, despite frequent debate?
 * 4) Say something substantively different from any of these?

The central matter is whether "US" or "U.S." is the dominant spelling in current (not historical) North American English, across all style guides and reliable sources (i.e., not limited to a particular genre or field). The previous discussion involved detailed source review to answer this question. The current version, based in MOS:COMMONALITY without citing it, relies on "US" being demonstrably dominant; so does the (reverted) newest version, explicit about COMMONALITY; while the MOS:ENGVAR idea suggested in the old version depends on the opposite (ENGVAR only applies to a consistently dominant usage in a country).

The raised, for editing, is this: the current version gradually favors "US" over time, and the newest version does so more explicitly, while the old version would keep "U.S." indefinitely in most articles that use it.

In American and Canadian English, as elsewhere, US has become the dominant abbreviation for United States. However, U.S. (with periods [full points] and without a space) remains common in North American publications, especially in news journalism. At least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecates "U.S." and recommends "US". Because use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S., UK, and USSR. In longer abbreviations (three letters or more) that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical/formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes and FIFA country codes).

US is a commonly used abbreviation for United States, although U.S. – with periods and without a space – remains common in North American publications, including in news journalism. Multiple American style guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecate "U.S." and recommend "US".

For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. Because use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK. In longer abbreviations that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), never use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US (or U.S.) may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the US). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes).

In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods [full stops] and without a space) is the dominant abbreviation for United States, though at least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US (without periods). US is more common in most other national forms of English. Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article. In longer abbreviations (three letters or more) that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical/formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes and FIFA country codes).

Please avoid empty WP:ILIKEIT / WP:IKNOWIT comments, as well as wikipolitical arguments about why we have/shouldn't have a style guide, whether a wikiproject should/shouldn't "own" articles in its scope, etc. Please stay on-topic.

This is a procedural RfC suggested by someone else, though dispute since the 2017 change has been minimal. A footnote about inconsistent journalistic usage was elided from the current-version and newest-version copies above, for brevity. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

US and U.S. are commonly-used abbreviations for United States. U.S. – with periods and without a space – remains common in North American publications, including all works of the United States government and in news media, while US is more often used elsewhere. US should always be used in tables where other ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter country codes are in use. Longer abbreviations that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF) never use periods, but partial constructions like U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force may. Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes).
 * When used as a noun in article prose, prefer United States (avoiding either abbreviation) for better formal writing style. This also avoids mixed-use constructions like the U.S. and the UK in favor of the United States and the United Kingdom, and provides an opportunity for commonality.
 * As an adjective in article prose, either US or U.S. may be used, but don't mix dotted and undotted within the same article. Generally speaking, U.S./U.K. is appropriate for American or Canadian English national variations, and US/UK for others. Prevalence in reliable sources can also be used to determine which to use. Use of either style should be retained in existing articles that they have been established.

Well if this RFC is actually going forward limited to only handling of US/U.S., here is the version I suggest, which does not prescriptively prohibit either style, but gives guidance to avoid the abbreviation for commonality. It recognizes that both dotted and undotted are commonly-used and acceptable, and that neither is a default nor forbidden. This will prevent edit warring and also prevent editors from being sanctioned for following a style they've know their whole lives. I intend to present an expanded form of this sometime in the future to cover other geographical acronyms (like Canadian English frequent use of dotted geographical acronyms like P.E.I., B.C., etc.). -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments on US/U.S.

 * I rarely see the spelling here in the United States as "US", it is usually USA or U.S. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Do you have some reliable sources on frequency, or the recommendations of modern style guides to cite?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the newest wording (i.e., revert to the status quo ante of the last consensus discussion), with current wording as second choice. They are based on overwhelming evidence that "U.S." has not been dominant in North American English for quite some time. Of those publishers who do use it, they are not even consistent with each other (e.g. some newspapers insist on it in headlines but use "US" in running prose, some do exactly the opposite, some use one everywhere, some the other). There is no WP:ENGVAR case that can be made, and the wording in the old version is just patently false. While MoS is not an article, it's grotesque for us to put disproved nonsense in it to advance nationalistic editwarring over a punctuation mark. The newest wording is more practical and will result in less disputation; the current reverted-to wording produces some conflict; the old one was a battleground generator.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 08:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I Object to how this RFC was opened. The question is not simply "US vs U.S." but about handling dotted acronyms in certain regional variants of English (per WP:ENGVAR).  For example, the preeminent Canadian English style guide The Canadian Style uses dots for all geographical acronyms, such as P.E.I. and B.C..  This RFC was opened with the intent of presenting this question in a limited way and the format of the RFC was not agreed to ahead of time.  Calling this "revisiting" a "perennial" discussion in the title of this header betrays the opener's total lack of impartiality on this matter and poisons the question (see WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCST). SMcCandlish's also framing how he wants responses to be made (referencing ILIKEIT) and is already WP:BADGERING here. I'd like to see this RFC speedy closed until we can get a neutral presentation of the actual changes being suggested. -- Netoholic @  03:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)  I'd like to point out that the opener has taken the opportunity to lay out much of his main arguments within the lead section of this RFC itself. This is just not how to hold a neutral RFC. -- Netoholic @  04:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A long thread of responses to this objection has been refactored into the extended discussion section.
 * Gut feeling (no RSs, punctuation is ignored by google and ngram), that excessive/unnecessay dot use is decreasing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Google Books ngram Viewer - up to 2000: I did just now take a look at this in the Google Books ngram view. In that tool, "US" and "U.S." are aggregated to "U.S.", so cannot distinguish using the out-of-the-box functionality.  Link to the ngram query.  This analysis does show "U.S./US" > "United States" >> "USA" > "United States of America".  Seems "U.S./US" overtook "United States" a bit after 1980, before which "United States" prevailed over all other forms. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1950 to 2008 - changed the analysis window to 1950–2008 and found the order of use unchanged between 2000 and 2008. I tried to take it to 2018, but 2018 was auto-replaced with 2008; appears this is as recent as things go. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the balance of sources, it is clear that modern usage within American material varies to the extent that neither formulation can now be considered integral to American Engvar. As additional sources I would add that the CNN International website uses 'US', as did all the Olympic bid documents from the LA28 committee (I would be interested to know whether CNN's domestic website uses the same, i.e. it's now its house style, or not, i.e. they use unpunctuated style for an international audience?).  I'm with SMcC in seeing a trend in this direction for acronyms generally (punctuated style for longer ones like UNESCO died years ago).  Outside America (possibly excluding Canada as mentioned above), unpunctuated appears much more common.  On the basis of Commonality, ease of reading, and consistency with other acronyms, I would support the current wording.  As an aside, I always wondered why USA is deprecated in WP when it is widely used elsewhere; for example I saw it recently in a document submitted to the UN by the US government? MapReader (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to know that the US site (heh) uses "U.S." in the site headings, but article headlines still use "US". — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 14:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The headlines and the bodycopy at cnn.com use "US"; it's their menu system that uses "U.S." Deets below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My take: the entire question is not worth the amount of time and angst we spend on it. I don’t think it matters whether we abbreviate with dots or not, as long as we are consistent within a given article.  If the article is consistent... don’t change it. If not... first person to make it consistent “wins”. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me (from my personal observations of usage on the 'net) that a majority of people in the United States use the "US" form, while "U.S." remains the canonical form in government and legal contexts. Internationally, "US" is unquestionably the dominant form. Perhaps we should stick with the current (after reversion) text, or use the newest version with a note that articles regarding government or legal topics are still allowed to use the older form. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 14:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That last bit wouldn't be necessary. We don't need the spelling variance except in citations (legal citations take highly specific forms, varying by jurisdiction), because citation style is governed by WP:CITEVAR; that is, a citation can diverge from MoS style in such nit-picks if the citation format requires it. The fact that "U.S. Department of Justice", following Government Printing Office Style Manual style, is what the DoJ itself uses doesn't require anyone else to do so; thus:, etc.  And WP in particular really doesn't care about "officialness", per WP:OFFICIALNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My personal favourite WP:OFFICIALNAME is the 1958 U.S.-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, in which they diplomatically used two types of English in the official abbreviated name. Unfortunately, our MOS:ACRO does not permits this form.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If it really were the official title of the document, then it would be permitted, under MOS:TITLES. But it clearly is not the title; it's a Wikipedia-invented WP:NPOVTITLE, a made-up descriptive phrase.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a Wikipedia invention; it's the WP:COMMONNAME. eg   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To a large extent, I agree with what Blueboar said: this is a trivial issue. I'm inclined to say that the evidence does point to using US rather than U.S. as a preferred form, and treating the stable form of an existing page, so long as it is consistent, similarly to the way that we treat WP:ENGVAR. Consistency within a page seems most important to me. As for the three wording options above, I find the newest version, with its opaque reference to "commonality", to sound like it was written by a committee, whereas the current/recent version seems to me to be better written and not significantly different unless one counts angels on heads of pins. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a trivial issue, but when people revert-war between three versions and demand an RfC, it's probably time to have an RfC. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh... When editors revert war over trivial things like this, the solution is to strongly chastise ALL those involved for disrupting the project. It always takes two to revert-war.  If BOTH are suspended for a day or two, the message will be clear... don't revert-war over trivial things like dots. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange as it may sound (or maybe not), I think the genesis of the most recent dispute over this point comes out of the disputes over US (U.S.?) politics, with the attendant battleground-ing. FYI, there is even a request at the admin requests for closure to have this discussion speedily closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the current version. I see that other editors are using bold font summaries. Therefore I'll spell out that I think the newest version is badly written so I prefer to use the current version. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the newest wording: this is clear and consistent. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the newest wording: I think this version is the clearest -- Whats new?(talk) 04:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the newest wording — If you step back and look at it, MOS:ABBR specifies initialisms should not be rendered with periods. Of all the initialisms that are sometimes rendered with them in various srouces, what is it about U-dot-S-dot that justifies it having been codified as an exception? It can't be WP:ENGVAR because it's not a case of vocabulary, spelling, date formatting or grammar... which are the four listed areas ENGVAR covers. Whether to use periods for initialisms is a matter of style and that's just not covered under ENGVAR. All the arguments that we should follow sources and represent/allow the diverse usage in the "real world" are irrelevant because we don't follow an overarching "use whatever style you want as long as it's consistent" mandate, or else there would be no MOS. We regularly switch out curly quotes for straight ones (MOS:CURLY), hyphens for dashes (MOS:DASH), single quotes for double quotes (MOS:SINGLE), and change whether periods go inside or outside quotation marks (MOS:LQ). We've observed that outside the United States, there is a clear preference overall for initialisms without periods. We've observed that in two countries (the United States and Canada), there is mixed usage, with many arguing that the trend is towards dropping periods. So unless ENGVAR's reach is much more broad than it reads, the entire notion there should be any exception for this one specific initialism seems pretty odd. If US gets an exception, why not PEI, BC, NATO, etc. etc.? No doubt there are people in the UK who prefer it be written "U.K." (and sources that render it that way) but there isn't an entire section in MOS devoted to carving out "U.K." as a sacrosanct rendering meriting an exception. Really the discussion should include the notion of tossing enshrining any exceptions for one initialism out completely, but since that's not on the table, the newest wording—which strikes a balance between resisting wholesale removal of "U.S." and making it clear that new material should adopt the MOS:ABBR guideline as a default—moves towards a clearer state of affairs that doesn't privilege the rendering of one term over any others. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the newest wording, which is quite clear and explicitly includes language against edit-warring to change it back and forth. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Stick with the current version, Use neutral wording, but like Netoholic, I object to how this RfC has been handled, and think it should be struck as not neutrally worded or opened. The "newest wording" is unacceptable as it implicitly disallows use of "U.S." in any new article going forward. --IJBall (contribs • talk)
 * I agree with others who have expressed that this is more trouble than it is worth. MOS wars in the past included the incredibly important difference between a hyphen and a dash, also known as the battle of tiny horizontal lines. Today it’s another issue that doesn’t really effect the overall quality of Wikipedia for the reader. (remember the reader? the person we’re all doing this for, not for ourselves to push our preferred rules of The Way Things Ought To Be?) and agree with Blueboar that consistency within individual articles is enough of a standard and also that anyone who edit wars over this in mainspace or MOS gets a swift kick out the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. The reason this is being RfCed at VPPOL is because of editwarring over the wording. The triviality of the subject should not lead to such drama, so we should just put it to bed and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the newest wording Per Beeblebrox. I am haunted by MOS:DASH, in which the MOS broke links all over the place, forced the development of special editing tools, and remains a pain that just won't go away. My other fear is that the adoption of this RfC will be touted in the media as another instance of Wikipedia's anti-US bias.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use neutral wording: if strong advice is not being offered as to which style a writer should adopt, it should be left at his own discretion--ie, there should not be thought-swaying either way by the MoS.  We have failed to reach a consensus as to whether or not 'U.S.' should be depreciated (or we had the last time I was involved), deciding that it should be an individual decision.  But, under no circumstances should 'U.K.' be accepted, or encouraged in any way:  it is not a common style in the UK itself, and the American style guides seem to be moving away from it (even if my iPhone obsessively adds the points).  I completely agree with the current 'do not mix ...' guidance, which seems to have caused reasonably few problems that I have encountered, and offers some clear direction to copyeditors as to how to deal with "style mixing". – Sb  2001  23:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether we use the dots or not. Just block people who edit war over it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think an external issue really matters here; after all, it's not something major to the reader so long as they can comprehend the article. In short, I agree with Hawkeye7 et alii, who note that consistency within articles means more than some lines of text in the Manual of Style. (Because, ultimately, that a reader gets the information they want is our end goal, right?) That being said, I do not believe that consensus regarding the implicit or explicit deprecation of any one style vis-à-vis another can be found, and, really, the MOS issues are a bit arcane, to say the least. Anyway, to stop rambling on, I agree wholly with Sb2001: use the neutral, no preference wording. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The magnitude of the debate about this is excessive compared to the magnitude of the underlying dispute. Seriously guys, it doesn't matter that much, and we should stop arguing about this and go build an encyclopedia.  Support whatever option puts this most firmly to bed permanently. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the newest wording: Mainly because it is the consensus from a lengthy and reasonably recent discussion (I'm taking SmC's word for this), but also because it is unambiguous.  Current version arbitrates nothing except in articles that have other country abbreviations.  I don't actually like the newest wording because 1) it makes the preferred style depend upon the history of the article, which defies the purpose of a manual of style; and 2) it introduces unnecessary ENGVAR - there's clearly a common version acceptable everywhere.  But I can accept consensus is against me.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion of US/U.S.

 * Here's a copy-paste of my sourcing run from the last round of this discussion, for those who don't want to go look in that thread:

I'll get this started, using the stack of style guides closest to my desk (leaves out some stuff like Scientific Style and Format):
 * It has a side rule to use "U.S." in publications that use "traditional" US state abbreviations like "Ill." and "Calif.", but WP is not one of these, and CMoS recommends against the practice anyway. This edition's material on this is a reversal from the 15th ed. which still favored "U.S."  Notably, MoS began when CMoS 15th was current, and has seen extensive revision over time to match the 16th (as it has also been being updated to match post-2010 editions of New Hart's Rules / Oxford Style Manual and Fowler's, etc., as the rest of the world does.
 * Brand new edition; hasn't had much real-world impact yet. CMoS has clearly softened on its stance about nouns.
 * Gives no explicit rule, but uses "US", "UK", "USSR" style throughout, and says of things like "U.N.E.S.C.O." that this is an intermediary stage in adoption of an acronym. This material is a bit dated; we don't actually do it that way any longer; a newly introduced acronym will appear as SNRKL not "S.N.R.K.L." in most publications.  Burchfield also favors the confusing practice of writing some true acronyms as if words and capitalizing their first letter even if they're not proper names, e.g. "Aids" for AIDS; this practice seems not to have caught on except among some British/Commonwealth news publishers, and I think one or another of the stylistically weirder American publications ( New Yorker, maybe? New York Times, but not consistently).]
 * Uses essentially the same wording as Burchfield's edition.
 * Has no noun/adjective rules but urges (on the same page cited here) reserving abbreviations for tabular data, citations, and other compressed material.
 * Does not include "U.S.", nor a noun/adjective rule.
 * There may be a newer edition out now; last time I looked it was still in production, but that was a few years ago.
 * Uses dot-free acronyms throughout, except for latinisms (e.g., p.m., i.e.). Specifically illustrates
 * There isn't an adjective/noun usage distinction maintained in New Hart's.
 * This was wrong even when it was published; the two leading US style guides (CMoS for academic writing, and Associated Press Stylebook for journalism) were already condemning this, and dominant usage of "LAPD" is provable in seconds by an N-gram constrained to US English and the decade leading up to publication of Ritter's book.  Ritter's comment appears to be material left over from the 1980s Hart's Rules, when it might have been closer to accurate. "REM" in the sleep sense has been absolutely dominant without periods for decades, and in the case of the band name, it's a proper name (also from the '80s) styled however the band likes (the band consistently used the dots, but the press did not ).
 * Garner seems (at first; see next entry) the primary hold-out in the style-guide world for "U.S.", and does not even acknowledge the usage shift, or that non-US usage might differ. This is weird because the current edition is taking pains to be more descriptive (even extensively using N-gram data) with hundreds of entries updated with usage-shift info; this entry was not updated.  Whether this represents Garner not getting around to it or studiously avoiding it is anyone's guess.  Despite being published by Oxford, this is a thoroughly American work, and Garner is not a linguist but a lawyer, steeped in legal writing (he's the editor or author of various works on legal writing); it's a register that in the US  uses U.S. except in longer acronyms like USAF.  See next entry, however.
 * I looked at every page the index said had anything to do with abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms, the period, proper names, and proper nouns. There's nothing about "U.S.", nor did I see it used in the prose while skimming, and he uses "UNESCO"-style throughout. This may be evidence that the entry in GMEU, above, simply didn't get updated since the last edition, or it may reflect editorial changes made by someone at the respective publishers; no way to really know.
 * . This appears to be self-contradictory, since the CP two-letter symbol for British Columbia is in fact BC.  This seems to imply using U.K., U.S., etc., but US is used on p. 30, then U.S.A. on p. 55.  So, I give up on what they really want.  Regardless, it doesn't actually appear to reflect typical, current Canadian style (it is 20 years old); I lived there in 2005–2006, and did not regularly encounter "U.K." and "U.S.A."
 * ECE provides no rule against using dots, and illustrates US/U.S. and UK/U.K., even USSR/U.S.S.R.. However, in the preceding sections on acronyms (&sect;4.8) and initialisms (&sect;4.9) it uniformly illustrates all of them without dots, a clear preference. It has no noun/adjective rule.
 * So, doesn't state a country rule, but illustrates use of US.
 * Uses "US" throughout. [Aside: This passage is, incidentally, proof of use of ie for i.e. in a US style guide; along with frequent use of i.e. in British publications that aren't newspapers, that kills the bogus ENGVAR argument for ie that we were seeing here about a month ago.]
 * [Aside: This publication is proof of use of Oxford spelling ("the Oxfrod -ize") in British publications besides those of Oxford University Press. It also calls for Latinisms to retain dots when abbreviated: i.e., e.g., and so on]
 * Self-inconsistent and confusing. The chapter on abbreviations gives all acronyms and initialisms in RAM and GNP style, but in an abbreviation list wants to not only use U.S. but to use U.S.A. to mean United States of America versus USA to mean United States Army; that's a "diff-caps" approach that is far too assumptive of the reader being in lock-step with the writer's intent for us to use it here.
 * American style guides dating to the 1990s and earlier are more apt to use (and sometimes have a rule in favor of) U.S., e.g. the ACS Style Guide from that era.
 * In academic American style guides this appears to be rare now; the only semi-recent one I can find so far in favor of U.S. is . It otherwise uses UMI-style acronyms/initialisms throughout (it gives U.S. as a special exception). It also has the adjective rule for it. No idea what the more recent edition says; the 6th dates to 2009, and I have one around somewhere.
 * US legal style guides use U.S. consistently, because this is the style required by most of the courts that have issued style requirements for legal filings, and is also the preference of the US Government Printing Office's manual, which means that regulatory agencies (which whom lawyers often have to communicate) also use it.
 * I found one 2005 work, The Cooper Hill Stylebook, 2nd ed., still advocating dots in acronyms and initialisms.
 * , doesn't appear to address the matter, though it seems to give acronyms and initialisms throughout in no-dots, all-caps, no-spaces style.
 * , appears to be agnostic on dots with initialisms and acronyms, and doesn't address country names in particular.
 * American journalistic style is, and contradictory. (British/Commonwealth is not; it's all "US" or "USA".) Many news publishers (especially those who employ all-caps headlines) use U.S. in headlines but not in running text; others use U.S. all the time; others don't use it at all, including most non-North American news publishers.
 * (arranged alphabetically by entry, which is more specific than page numbering; 2015 is the most recent edition I have) strangely recommends to use U.S. in body copy but US in headlines (probably because it recommends against all-caps headlines but for maximal headline compression).

This is just a start, though it took several hours and I'd rather not do more unless really necessary. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC); updated 08:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , says to always use U.S. and never give United States, except "in quotes or for special effect". That's obviously not an encyclopedic writing style.
 * (arranged alphabetically by entry, which is more specific than page numbering), which says "U.S. for United States, but only in headlines, summaries, tables and charts, and when unavoidable in picture captions." Seems like AP Stylebook, right?  But then it insists on URL but U.S.A.I.D., U.S.S.R., V.A.; then VC and VCR; but a surprise dodge to Unicef and Unesco, yet U.N.; and finally has a total meltdown: "U.N.AIDS (no spaces) for the United Nations program on H.I.V. and AIDS."  Wow.  There's just no rhyme or reason to this at all.  Pretty much no one else in the world would contemplate writing "U.N.AIDS", much less "H.I.V. and AIDS", or "U.N." then "Unesco".
 * That's an idiosyncratic house style.
 * . Uses "US President James Tucker" [a hypothetical example, obviously]; advises "UN, Nato, IRA, BBC"; this is consistent with typical British press usage ("US" not "U.S.", but treat pronounceable "word acronyms" in Aids and Unesco style), which can be verified with online style guides from The Guardian, The Economist, London Times, etc.; I'm not going to include them all individually.
 * News search: Just doing a Google News search clearly demonstrates a preference for "US" even in American publications, though (as noted above) particulars vary all over the place, with "U.S." sometimes used in main text but not headlines, or vice versa, or not at all, or in both.
 * Google Ngrams can't be used for this to check out book usage, unfortunately, as they processed "U.S." and "US" as synonymous and merged them.
 * I recall from previous digging that some business-English guides other than that of the Am. Mktg. Assn. also favor "U.S." Marketing ones, which are otherwise similar on many points, tend not to, because they deal with a lot of fancy logo typography, and know that dots in abbreviations in signage and ads impair quick reading when they're superfluous.
 * Has no explicit rules that are relevant here. Illustrates and consistently uses no-dots upper case for most acronyms and initialisms: IBM, ZIP, AIDS, CT or CAT scan, URL, CST and EDT, NAACP, SEC. Makes conventionalized exceptions for a few things: Ph.D., laser, a.m./p.m., A.D./B.C.; wants dots after Co., Inc., Ltd.  However, does use "U.S." in several examples (at least some of them quoted material).
 * Entire section illustrates all acronyms and initialisms in AIDS, NASA, etc. style (except for assimilated-as-words acronyms like laser, and Latinisms like i.e.). Doesn't make an exception for US, or address it directly.
 * Exact same text on this material as in the larger previous edition.
 * Conclusion so far:
 * "US" is dominant in English generally. "U.S." is still present aplenty in North American writing, but its usage is wildly inconsistent in American news publishing (even opposite from publication to publication as to whether it's used in headlines vs. body copy), now eschewed in academic publishing (what MoS is almost entirely based on), though found consistently in US legal writing. There's no  style guide evidence that the dot-bearing spelling is preferred in Canada (the stuff that favors it is also from the '90s); the 2000 Canadian source doesn't favor "U.S."  The rule to abbreviate adjectival but not noun use is common but not universal, and may be eroding (CMoS thinks so); however, various guides that do not have this rule instead do not want country names abbreviated at all except in tables, citations, etc.  Some just do not really care, though.  [Side observation: All these sources in favor of acronyms and initialisms in the form UN and FBI are also in favor of no dots in PhD and other degrees and titles.  A semi-recent RfC on that closed without consensus as I recall, because no one did the style-guide research. If it comes up again, the sources in the above list can be used to ensure a closure with consensus for dropping the extraneous dots.]

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've changed the hatting note to reflect that this is no simple list of sources and quotes, but also includes SMcCandlish's analysis and viewpoints. -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't see what the point is, when if you actually read the material this is obvious; but whatever you like.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thread in response to Netoholic's objection relocated here to keep the comment section un-mired.
 * I understand it as a special case--a proposal that regardless of any general rule about initialism, that in US contexts we should use U.S. (Personal preferences vary--10 years ago I would have written U.S. as a matter of course, but now my own writing tends to have UK style for this. I think that in fact may not just be personal, but reflect a general trend in the United States to use the simplified UK version of initialisms. I think it's rational to discuss special cases for the most widely used instances. I'm not expressing an opinion of the actual merits; just that I do notthink the proposal   disruptive or biased or even  inappropriate.  DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not, though, an issue just of handling of US/U.S., no matter how many times SMcCandlish tries to frame it as such. Yes, there is probably an everyday use trend toward dropping dots, but we're concerned about formal writing style - not what shortcuts people use in the age of smart phones and instant messaging. No one (I think) is advocating that we switch to using dots - only that dotted acronyms for geographic locations be considered acceptable use and not dismissed out-of-hand because others use a different style within their WP:ENGVAR. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone can open an RfC about anything they want, and the one I've presented is factual and balanced. Asking someone for evidence isn't "badgering", it's standard operating procedure. Your issues were not even clearly articulated, but mostly just circular argument and days of throwing shade at an October 6–17, 2017, detailed consensus discussion simply because it didn't give you the answer you like. My concerns are clearer: either the 2017 consensus holds, or there's something wrong with it, so let's settle it. This  perennial; editors been arguing about it the entire time MoS has existed. The 2017 discussion happened and concluded as it did because there is now sufficient RS evidence to be certain. We cannot keep re-litigating this until the end of time. I included an "other" option for you and anyone else with an alternative idea (people tend to object to binary choices). It's perfectly normal to remind people to stay on topic and avoid the arguments to avoid if they are commonly presented at a particular type of RfC and tend to trainwreck them. Moving on: there is no ongoing dispute about "UK" vs. "U.K.", etc.  This has been covered by MOS:ABBR for over a decade without strife or contention.  There's a very stable site-wide consensus to present acronyms/initialisms in "UK, HIV/AIDS, USAF, and UNICEF" format, not "U.K., H.I.V./A.I.D.S., U.S.A.F. [even the USAF doesn't!], and U.N.I.C.E.F." format (nor in daft journalese like "Aids and Unicef").  There is no open question about this, only about "U.S.", because some Americans doggedly insist on this mid-20th-centuryism despite proof that it's no longer dominant usage even in American publishing.  And just because the "P.E.I." style  doesn't mean it should be used here instead of "PEI". It is not an ENGVAR matter, since there is no nationwide consistent norm to use that style anywhere in the anglosphere any longer.  — SMcCandlish — an American — ☏ ¢ 😼  06:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "there is no nationwide consistent norm" - If this is the case, then we of course must allow either method to be used. Only if undotted WAS a national norm could we even begin to discuss limiting our MOS in accordance. For articles that are written in American or Canadian English varieties, both methods are common and acceptable. That is enough to say that we should not (and in practicality, can not) enforce one over the other. And please stop attacking people who use this method by saying they "doggedly insist" - you're being exclusionary of writing styles which are common in English varities other than your own. This is not in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. It is perhaps a mistake to frame ENGVAR as "national varieties" when regional differences exist within nations... but if you're going to focus on "national norms", then we must give high weight to the style guides produce by national bodies such as The Canadian Style (in use by the Canadian government) and the works of the United States government such as the GPO Style Manual (and guides by National Archives, USA.gov, Office of Energy, EPA, NASA, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Congress, Supreme Court).  Don't guides used by national governments adhere to (or define) national norms? -- Netoholic @  07:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * MoS says nothing like that whatsoever. ENGVAR applies when there  a consistent national norm, e.g. colour/color, tyre/tire. Otherwise, a general MoS provision doesn't have an ENGVAR exception.  MOS:ABBR is a general provision, to which you're seeking "special exceptions" and now you're insisting on it with the basis that they're  consistenly used in sources. This just doesn't track, sorry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't guides used by national governments adhere to (or define) national norms? -- Netoholic @ 09:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I originally responded to this with a run-down of what style guides have any real impact on broad usage and on Wikipedia. I've since refactored that to Identifying and using style guides. Government style guides determine bureacratese/governmentese/militarese (regulatory language); they also tend to affect legal style a little (a field with its own manuals), and business writing to an extent (which also draws heavily on journalism/marketing style, of course). And that's about it. I've never in my life heard of a English class recommending the GPO Style Manual, for example. It's a quirky style, full of excessive capitalization and a hatred of hyphens, commas, and much other punctuation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 22:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The "neutral" proposal does include 'Generally speaking, U.S./U.K. is appropriate for American or Canadian English national variations', which I may suggest is advocating that 'U.K.' is acceptable. I do not see 'U.S.' as being the same as 'U.N.I.C.E.F.'--one is an acronym; the other an initialism.  My personal preference is for the so-called "journalese" 'Unicef', but I recognize that there is little chance of that viewpoint being adopted.  Having just come back from a six-month break, I had rather hoped that the argument would have moved away from combining these two issues.  There is compelling evidence for 'US' rather than 'U.S.'  If editors choose not to take notice of it, we must offer them a clear choice, rather than trying to prompt them into selecting one style over the other. – Sb  2001  00:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you mean. If they're offered a choice, then they'll have to select one style over the other. I think you're indicating that MoS should recommend something specific rather than present a choice for such selection.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all: I am stating that it is unreasonable to offer a choice  present one side as being more "logical" than the other.  Ie, neutral wording should be used in order that it does not appear that decision making is being swayed.  Of course  have to make the choice; that does not mean that we have the right to influence it when no decisive conclusion has been drawn on the "US v U.S." issue.  – Sb  2001  15:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Where's that coming from, though? No one's made a logic argument. There's a practicality one, and a how-well-does-it-reflect-reality one, but those aren't arguments about the intrinsic logic of either style.  Punctuation is pretty arbitrary, and it shifts over time. That is, after all, why this debate even exists; the usage has shifted over about the last 30 years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 'logical' was the wrong word ... I'm not talking about which is the "better" one--if it were up to me, I discourage people from using 'U.S.'  The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with a completely unresolved debate, and one which I doubt will be resolved in the foreseeable future.  If the MoS does not favour one style, it should not be presenting one-sided wording alongside it.  That is the only point I am actually making here:  if, amongst ourselves, we are unable to decide, we must actually leave it at the discretion of the individual.  – Sb  2001  00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It does favor one style; see MOS:ABBR. We were making a single, lone exception for a while for "U.S." on the assumption that it was dominant in current American writing, but this turns out not to be true for some time now. It's not a "completely unresolved debate"; the sourcing is firmly in favor of "US", and so has MoS been for several years (both the current and new wording) until someone decided to try to rewrite it to suit their preferences, against the last rather comprehensive consensus discussion on the matter. We're not unable to decide amongst ourselves; the response so far has overwhelmingly been in favor of either the new or current wording, not the early 2010s wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: The Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed. (2017) wasn't included in the original source run (I didn't have it yet at the time). Despite Netoholic's strange claims to the contrary, it's almost word-for-word identical to the advice in the 16th ed., never even mentioning "U.S." except in the context of old-style envelope addresses using traditional state abbreviations ("Mass., U.S.", "Calif., U.S."). Here's the full relevant text:

"10.4 Periods with abbreviations. ... 3. Use no periods with abbreviations that include two or more capital letters, even if the abbreviation also includes lowercase latters: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, U, US, NY, IL. 4. In publications using traditional state abbreviations, use periods to abbreviate United States and its states and territories: U.S., N.Y., Ill. Note, however, that Chicago recommends using the two-letter postal codes (and therefore US) wherever abbreviations are used.... ... 10.28 Abbreviations for Canadian provinces and territories. ... may be abbreviated in bibliographies and the like—using the two-letter postal abbreviations, which have the advantage of applying to both the English and French forms. AB [=] Alberta; ... PE [=] Prince Edward Island .... ... 10.31 Abbreviating country names. ... Certain initialisms, on the other hand [i.e., in lieu of spelled-out names], may be appropriate in regular text, especially after the full form has been established.... UAE (United Arab Emirates), US, UK, GDR .... ... 10.32 "US" versus "United States." ... Note that, as a matter of editorial tradition, this manual has long advised spelling out United States as a noun, reserving US for the adjective form only (where it is preferred) and for tabular matter and the like. In a departure [i.e., from the 16th ed.], Chicago now permits the use of US as a noun, subject to editorial discretion and provided the meaning is clear from context. US dollars; US involvement in China; China's involvement in the United States or China's involvement in the US."

I skipped 10.27 (US states and territories) because it gives the same advice (two-letter postal codes, no dots) as 10.4 and 10.28. as in the 16th ed. (2010), aside from a few copyediting tweaks, and the new "In a departure" note, quoted above.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "except in the context of old-style envelope addresses" - THAT is the very meat of this issue. We're NOT talking about data tables that might use either a list of state/province postal codes or that use ISO two- or three-letter country codes. The question at hand is handling of abbreviations in running article prose, for example when an article mentions "actions of the U.S. Navy", "information regarding P.E.I. officials", "historical sites in Vancouver, B.C.", or "U.S. Interstate 787 which terminates in Albany, N.Y.". This is exactly why this RFC needs to be called off and re-thought... the scope doesn't seem to be clear to its opener. You seem to be trying to argue that should be using postal codes in these scenarios. -- Netoholic @ 09:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have a whole guideline page on this, MOS:ABBR, and it's clear on this: WP gives acronyms without the dots. It that a style with dots is attested; it isn't the style we use. You wanted an RfC about MOS:US, after briefly revert-warring  (after objections ) to change it without discussion – and accusing others of having done so when there was actually a large consensus discussion about it before you arrived. Now that there's an RfC, you've switched gears and want to change our entire treatment of acronyms?  No. That is not this discussion. You can go start a new RfC on that, because it's a radical change to how WP has been written for about 17 years now. That belongs at WP:VPPRO, being a major proposal, not a minor P&G clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it clear on this? "WP gives acronyms without the dots" seems inaccurate because I see several places where U.S. is used in the examples: "New York is in the U.S.", "U.S. Central Intelligence Agency" and "U.S. government", "Great Northern Railway (U.S.)". #Miscellanea and #Abbreviations widely used include several acronyms with dots (lower-case ones and compass directions).  As an aside, why does this page give advice to "please create redirects that contain (US) and (U.S.)" but not the same advice for (UK) and (U.K.) or any other geographic abbreviation?  I have never heard of anyone actually doing that in either case, but its just weird how one is singled out. -- Netoholic @  10:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because "U.S." is a permissible exception (depending on context) by long consensus. That doesn't mean "U.K." or "P.E.I." are. There is no wording contemplated in this RfC or in any of the editwarred-over versions at MOS:US that make "U.S." never permissible. But nor do any of them make U.S.S.R. or H.I.V./A.I.D.S. permissible; "U.S." is a one-shot variance and only because of constant bickering about that one initialism.  What changed (in order) was that "U.S." stopped being mandatory in US English articles something like a decade ago (but was to be left alone if already used), then stopped being mandatory to never change in a US English article that already used it (i.e., it became desirable to normalize "US" to match "UK", etc., if present) a couple of years ago, finally to "US" being actively favored for MOS:COMMONALITY reasons. It strikes me that the RfC isn't even covering that version; I should probably add it for completeness since it was the most recent. I was so used to the version I listed as "current" that I didn't even notice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "permissible exception" ... "only because of constant bickering about that one initialism". Wow. To frame this in that way. Wow.-- Netoholic @ 12:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly demonstrable; just read the past discussions . You'll find a marked lack of drama and demands for, say, "U.K." or "N.A.T.O." or "M.S.-D.O.S." Only for "U.S.", and perpetually strident, grounded in a mixture of traditionalism-based emotion and claims that it's the dominant style in US writing, a notion that's been conclusively disproved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Derp. I actually have the 17th ed. in the original source dump, but mislabeled it 16th. Sorry for the duplicate cite, folks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, CNN.com (accessed from a US IP address) consistently uses "US" both in headlines and in running prose. As for "USA", I'm not really sure why MoS is against that TLA. It predates my arrival on the scene in 2005, I think. Arguments I recall are: 1) it's redundant, since US is shorter; 2) it's not normal US English except in particular circumstances (i.e., it's largely an exonym imposed on the US, like referring to all of the Netherlands as Holland, or trying to tell de.wikipedia.org to rename their München article to Munich. 3) it's ambiguous, because it's the standard acronym of the United States Army (though for most purposes the ambiguity runs the other direction; WP shouldn't refer to the US Army as "USA" except in a reference in its' own main article's lead as a MOS:BOLDSYN).  There were probably others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * CNN's not even long-term consistent on "use U.S. in headlines", and appears to have abandoned it cmopletely without revising old articles. "U.S." appears to have been their traditional style several years ago. All the new material appears to use "US" throughout, headlines and all. Every recent (like this week) article with the abbreviation in a headline uses "US" so far as I can see:, , , , etc. I'm reaching these via an American IP address, and have "Set edition preference: US" (at page bottom). However, cnn.com uses "U.S." in its menu system . This seems to be a conflict between their editorial department and the IT/e-content people running the website (who may really be some company of contractors).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So what is clear is that is not clear cut...... so best to leave this up to editor discretion at each article.--Moxy (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your reasoning. We know for a fact that some people do acronyms in "ABC" form, and others use "A.B.C." form. MoS settled on ABC form, to match the majority of style guides and other real-world usage. A single exception was carved out, "U.S.", on the basis that it was a dominant, special, usage in the United States. Source research 16 or so years later disproves the rationale for the exception; it's no longer dominant, and US style guides are turning directly against it.  So, why – for that acronym alone – would losing "special" status amount to "do what you like, article by article" rather than "do what MOS:ABBR says" like all other initialisms?  Especially after multiple consensus discussions conclude in favor of "US"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how realistic it is to suggest that 'USA' is an imposed exonym, given its regular chanting by US sports fans at pretty much any international sporting event? MapReader (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's not my argument, just one I've encountered in various forms. The reasoning basically seems to be along these lines: "Most Americans and American publishers don't use that; it's an old-fashioned thing that we retain in a few stock phrases and some special circumstances, but it's not general usage.  Non-Americans using it is like Americans insisting that Thailand still be called Siam."  I'm not sure I buy it either, but the viewpoint exists.   PS: The sports codes are set by the sport governing bodies like IOC and FIFA. They're also abbreviated noun phrases (USA for the entire country name with "of America").  This might be an argument to use "USA" in such a grammatical circumstance: "China's relations with the USA" versus "US interference in China's markets". But style guides mostly suggest using a non-acronym: "China's relations with the United States", and a US/USA rule would be fiddly and widely ignored.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * US-politics-related shenanigans for this last round of squabbling may be behind it, ultimately, in that this seems to have been sparked by an AWB spree to force "US" widely (I haven't tried to track down the rationale, if any, provided for that). But the RfC demander's concerns are way broader, and seem to actually be grounded in a Canadian demand to use "P.E.I." for Prince Edward Island (though that's not the .ca postal code for it, and we don't normally abbreviate such things except in tables anyway). History-wise (and without getting into dramaboard-style diffs), what I see is a bold change (mine) led to a long consensus discussion last year. The resulting version (refined from bold one) was stable after that. No one seemed to care. An editor, irked by a mass change to "enforce" that version (which should have been taken to ANI as a WP:MEATBOT matter) showed up and boldly started rewriting it radically without discussion; someone reverted that; rewriter then tit-for-tat reverted to an older version closer to their preferences. Only one editor appears to have edit-warred and short of 3RR, just 2, to get rid of the newest of these three drafts, after someone already objected to their removal the first time. Only then did discussion ensue, but with the revising bold editor complaining about how bold the previous version was (even though it was really the product of a consensus discussion), and wanting an RfC. But then that discussion turned circular with extraneous stuff that's basically a challenge to the existence of MOS:ABBR. I opened the RfC on the narrower question, since we generally don't nuke entire guideline pages. The one who wanted the RfC is upset that their particular (basically off-topic) issues aren't addressed by the RfC but I don't think they  be.  The way to try to get rid of WP having a preference for "UNESCO on HIV/AIDS in the UK" style, to permit "U.N.E.S.C.O. on H.I.V./A.I.D.S. in the U.K.", is to have a separate RfC about a major change to MOS:ABBR. And such an RfC would fly about as far as a lead dirigible.
 * Again, my take on all of this is that arguing and edit warring about dots is disruptive... and I think we agree on that. However, I think we disagree on the solution.  Your solution seems to be: let’s iron this out and make a rule.  My take is that trying to make a rule is what has CAUSED most of the disruption.  My feeling is that if some editors want to write “U.S.” or “P.E.I.” (or even U.N.E.S.C.O.) ... let them.  As long as they are consistent WITHIN any given article, most readers won’t even blink.  Trying to formulate a site wide rule on this has ended created MORE disruption than being flexible would cause.  So, my solution is: Don’t have a firm rule... say that both forms are allowed. Intentionally devolve the choice to the article level. And if editors edit war ... call them to the carpet for EDIT WARRING, not for violating the style rules. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure a lot of editors would blink if some started spelling out acronyms like UNESCO and UNICEF with lots of dots! MapReader (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or even U.K., U.A.E., and U.S.S.R., for those who like to draw a distinction between word acronyms and initialisms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The U.N.E.S.C.O. and H.I.V. thing is a strawman/red herring used to throw silliness into the mix, to discredit the opposition. No one is suggesting going to that here. The area of concern is not about organizations or other initialisms but with regards to geographical names only, which are dotted often because you are mixing multi-word name acronyms with single-word name shortenings like listing Canadian provinces P.E.I., Sask., Man., B.C., and such. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. "Prince Edward Island" and "British Columbia" are multi-word, exactly like the expansions of UNESCO and HIV. If you don't like the UNESCO example because it's a "word acronym" pronounced as a word instead of a series of letter, try HIV, as well as FBI, CIA, GDR, USSR, and a million others. It simply is not contemporary style to write these with dots in them. "U.S." has lingered longer in that form, but it's not the dominant style even the US today; we have no reason to make a "magically special" exception for it. There is no away around this.  I don't need to "discredit" you; your traditionalism-based argument simply doesn't stand up.  The fact that you can find a couple of style guides that still permit this use is irrelevant; they don't recommend it, and even if they did, they'd still be a minority. "U.S." in North American English simply doesn't rise to the level of national style as, say, colour versus color in British English. No amount of wishing that it were an ENGVAR matter will make it one.  If WP had been around in 1983, you would have had an actual case to make.  Times change and languages change with them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What media reports touting WP's supposed anti-US bias? How can that possibly square with WP being massively dominated by US editors, and the principal complaint about our coverage being that it's heavily US-centric (and Western-centric, and male-centric, and liberal/progressive-centric)?  And how could using a consistent "US and UK" spelling be "anti-US bias" when major American publishers and style guides also use "US"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Last time round it was over our acceptance of non-US spellings. WP is not dominated by US editors; WMF is. During the Paralympic Games we gathered a lot of statistics on who was editing and where, and while six of the top ten articles by edits were the country-at-the-Paralympics articles, the US did not figure, demonstrating that US editors were actually a minority. I thought I was agreeing with you on this one. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Retain guideline ... but also provide correct information. (1) "US has become the dominant abbreviation for United States." "Dominant"? This is an opinion without substantiation. (2) What's attributed to The Chicago Manual of Style should be revised. The CMS does not deprecate ""U.S." and recommends "US"." What CMS actually says is:


 * If a style manual is going to be referenced in WP:MOS, it should be referenced correctly. Neutral wording is best when the subject is not conclusive. Pyxis Solitary  09:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No page or section cited. Where are you getting this from? The wording you're giving simply doesn't appear. I've quoted in complete relevant text section numbers (which are consistent between print and electronic editions) of all the applicable material from CMoS 17, and will do so again below. You appear to actually be quoting staff blog material from ChicagoManualOfStyle.org, specifically copy-pasting from this page; the cross-references it provides (&sect;&sect; 10.4 and 10.33) do not say what that post says they do, and I've quoted what they actually say verbatim, below.  I.e., the website material is contradicting the actual book; the post appears to have been unrevised from the 15th edition (since the 16th says what the 17th does, except, as noted below, in one spot). Their forum even indicates complaints that the book doesn't address "USA/U.S.A." (see second entry here). Here's what the book actually says:

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * as in the 16th ed. (2010), aside from a few copyediting tweaks, and the new "In a departure" note, quoted above. PS: The dominance of "US" isn't "unsubstantiated"; see above. If you want to prove a counter-claim, Pyxis Solitary, you have a tremendous amount of sourcing to do, with works somehow more authoritative than those already cited; I don't see how that could even be possible.


 * 1) Why did  you edit my comment? Why did you alter my comment by removing the quote frame? Where in WP:TALK does it say that a quote box is discouraged or is not appropriate?
 * 2) What do you mean "Where are you getting this from?" Click on the CMS FAQ link I included when I quoted CMS and you'll see it.
 * 3) You quote the CMS publication as if everyone has a copy of the book. I'm not going to buy one just to double-check that what you're quoting is precisely what appears in it. Provide a link to those sections. It's not available online? Then I take what you've posted with a grain of salt.
 * 4) "the post appears to have been unrevised from the 15th edition (since the 16th says what the 17th does, except, as noted below, in one spot)". Scroll down to the bottom of the webpage I cited and you will see:  "The Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition text © 2017 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition text © 2010 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago Manual of Style Online © 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017 by The University of Chicago." That's what CMS has published — that's what CMS says.
 * 5) You are trying to push your position down everyone's throat. Provide a reliable source that can be verified by everyone. When it comes to MOS, quoted content from a book that many if not most Jane and John Does don't have at their disposal is insufficient validation.
 * 6) Life is short, and since you took it upon yourself to lord over my original comment ... this is the last time I am going to respond to this topic. Shame on you.  Pyxis Solitary  12:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, we trust editors to be honest about quotations. Complete?  Well, maybe not always.  But honest about the parts that they type.  We do this partly because we're fond of WP:AGF, but also experience has shown that that experienced editors are reasonably smart about their self-interests, at least to the extent of not wanting to get caught in an outright lie.  You might not personally happen to have a copy of CMOS at hand, but plenty of other editors do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And can you imagine me of all people lying about the content of a style guide, when half the people I argue with have the style guide? LOL. I would have be possessed by Donald Trump to do that. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this all demonstrates that CMOS is not consistent on the issue, as the website FAQ doesn't match the printed book. This could mean that either is wrong, or that there has been a change since the publication of the book. I don't think it matters which is which - either its inconsistent or wrong - neither of which point to a reliable source on the matter. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Does it really matter what CMOS says? We are not bound by the CMOS. Sure, it is nice when our guidance is in sync with what other style guides say, but ultimately our guidance is based on our own internal consensus.  That consensus currently seems to be to allow both “U.S.” and “US” (but whichever is used, be consistent within an article).  This is supported by actual practice at the article level (whenever there are undiscussed attempts to change from one to the other, they are quickly reverted... and it goes both ways). Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It just one source among many, though a high-quality one on this particular micro-topic  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To take these in numbered series:
 * 0. Why are you picking fights about talk page trivia, and pretending people who disagree with you are dishonest? No one cares about the former or will buy the latter.
 * I didn't edit your comment, I editing the disruptively obnoxious framing around it. Your posts are not magically more important than everyone else's that they need to draw attention to themselves with huge visual gimmicks. The talk page guideline permits refactoring of this sort. Taking a "There's not a rule against what I want to do" approach is wikilawyering. It doesn't mean "I can do it no matter what and no one can stop me." Other editors are permitted to refactor within reason. You do not own a talk page you post to, not even your user talk page.
 * It's called a rhetorical question, which is obvious, since I answered it myself in the sentence that followed.
 * That's a serious failure to assume good faith. See also Verifiability policy: No one has to buy a source for you, and sources being available online for free is not required. You also seem to be unaware that discretionary sanctions apply to style/titles-related policy discussions, especially with regard to casting aspersions without evidence or otherwise excessively personalizing such disputes.
 * You're sorely confused about what The Chicago Manual of Style is. It's a book, available in paper and (for a fee) online, with identical text. The webpage you cited is not the CMS or part of it, it's part of the staff-written Q&A blog materials about the CMS, at the CMS website. You also don't seem to understand that a copyright notice applied by a script to an entire website has nothing to do with the last time the content in a page on that website was substantively updated. "That's what CMS has published" is not a sensible statement. The CMS is a publi cation .  The publish er is the University of Chicago Press (also the publisher of the website).  It's like mistaking The Magical Mystery Tour for Apple Records, or confusing Game of Thrones with HBO. "That's what CMS says" is a demonstrably incorrect statement, though I ascribe this to the above-mentioned confusions, not to any intent to deceive. You actually do appear to believe what you're saying, despite all evidence presented to you that you've erred.
 * Source already provided. If you don't want to buy the book, get it from interlibrary loan for free, or just look at a copy in your local bookstore. Or just ask anyone else here who has a copy to look for you. Providing sources and challenging false statements isn't pushing anything down anyone's throats, it's providing sources and challenging false statements.  It's much of what we do all day every day here.
 * Yes, life short. See point 0, above.
 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I would not respond to this topic again. And I'm not. However, this thinly-veiled attempt by SMcCandlish to intimidate me in response to my 9 July 2018 comment in this discussion is a form of harassment. I've responded to this misbehavior on my talk page. I suggest that this discussion be closed until another editor that is not so obviously personally vested in the subject creates a new but similar topic. Pyxis Solitary  04:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of a "this is the last time I am going to respond" statement followed by a response that says it's not a response and reminds us there will be no response then also points us to another response in user talk. That seems very unclear on the concept of not responding A template is not a threat or intimidation, or anything like WP:Harassment.  This template (and this template only, without modification) is required by ArbCom to be delivered (not more frequently than once per year) to anyone whose editing seem to indicate they are unaware of the discretionary sanctions (DS) that apply to that particular topic area. It is awareness notice, not a threat or an accusation. I made it very clear when posting it that it had nothing to do with any action I would take myself. Per your request, I have closed this discussion, since it is off-topic anyway.  If you don't like the template and its wording, see fortuitously ongoing discussion at Template talk:Ds about revising it. If you don't think these templates should be necessary but that DS should still apply, try raising this at WT:ARBCOM. I have tried several times to get rid of this bureaucracy, but ArbCom always refuses or ignores.  If you don't think DS should apply to MoS at all, join the club. I tried to have them removed about two weeks ago and ArbCom unanimously refused. We're stuck with it, at least for now.  If you have an issue with me personally, use User talk:SMcCandlish; it's what user talk pages are for, not what Village Pump is for.  If you plan to respond with grandstanding of this sort every time someones leaves you a procedural notice in user talk, you're going to find that will not go over well.
 * (1)You are in no position to deliver an ArbCom notice to me about my 9 July 2018 comment -- specially since you're so emotionally involved. (2) "Per your request, I have closed this discussion. You know very well that the "discussion" is the topic, not my comment. Pyxis Solitary  06:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: How about avoiding U.S: and UK altogether? We can easily write United States and United Kingdom without wasting ink. --NaBUru38 (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Doing this is what most style guides recommend, at least for noun usage ("Relations between Canada and the United States") but many like the abbreviation for adjectival cases ("US sanctions on Cuba"). Chicago Manual, weirdly (given its traditionalism) has now started "permitting" the abbreviation in noun use, as do the journalism style guides.  Real-world usage isn't consistent.  I think people will object that always having to use "United States" (and thus probably also "United Kingdom") will be onerous and pedantic. Even among those who don't mind it in running text, we'd still have the issue tables and other circumstances where the short form would often be desirable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:BMB
WP:BMB basically allows us to delete everything contributed by a banned editor. However, we see cases where banned editors (through socking) are contributing to (or creating) articles which are later substantially edited by other editors, as well as banned editors (through socking) bring good material which can subsequently not be reverted. WP:BMB talks there about that being paradoxal in some cases - the banned editor 'uses' that material to show that they do good.

I am aware of an extreme case of this, where the banned editor is actively participating in article-for-creation drives in order to 'collect' such mainspace 'trophies' to show their good (which includes bragging about their good work, and participating in local ánd 'global' drives using the en.wikipedia article creations/expansions to be eligible for the offered prizes). Some of those 'trophies' cannot be removed through deletion or reverting.

Would it be in the spirit of, and allowed by, WP:BMB/WP:BANREVERT to blundly use revision deletion on the content of the revisions contributed by a banned editor (a condition that could then be added to G5) on those cases where information cannot be deleted, up to a level that in the end there is no visibility of content that the banned editor contributed? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocking on Wikipedia is supposed to be entirely for protective reasons (prevent damage to the encyclopedia), not punitive reasons (do something painful to the people who have committed some infraction). So I find the premise of your posting here, that we should somehow prevent socks from making good contributions in order to punish them by diminishing their bragging rights, to be entirely nonsensical. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * David, what you now state here is a contradiction of WP:BMB. In both cases we are in the good place to discuss that, but your comment is a different thread.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor in question, and all banned editors who 'try to do good to show they are not bad' are, with those edits, disrupting Wikipedia. It is not 'punishment' to delete those edits, it is protecting Wikipedia against the disruption.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BMB doesn't say to delete the edits of banned users. Are you proposing that WP:BANREVERT should be made more strict?—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, this is more application of WP:BANREVERT. I would not say more strict, more whether our banning policy would allow the use of revdel to assist G5/reverting (which you then could see as an independant recreation of deleted content in case of artice deletions).  This is probably more correct than copy/pasting the deleted content into a new article as I have seen suggested (and which I think is prohibited here), or to leave it stand as in the specific type of examples where it feeds the paradox of BMB.  At the moment, any 'substantial edit' (whatever that may be) lets significant content of banned editors stand, which feeds the BMB paradox.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It has always been accepted that for an article submitted by a banned editor, any editor in good standing may adopt it. When I do this, I do not do this lightly. I only do it when I think the subject is so notable that the 1r would be harmed if we did not have the article, and usually only in a field where I normally work. For subjects of just ordinary importance, or ones where I do not work regularly enough to judge or to be confident in rewriting, I  generally delete them instead of fixing them. In fact, I've deleted many thousands of such articles. I have rescued only  a few hundred. I agree completely with the general policy of removing the work of banned editors, unless there is some reason not to.. The decision of an established editor to adopt on a selective basis is such a reason. (I would think it very improper for an editor to indiscriminately try to rescue all the work of a banned editor without considering which were appropriate, and I do not think that any current established editor here is doing that, though some have come near this is the past). For these few cases where the article is adopted, I do not think it harms the general effect of denying recognition. RevDel should not be overused, and I don't think it necessary here. It should be limited to where the material is actually improper to be retained because it would harm the encyclopedia. )and consequently I do very little rev del except for copyvio)  DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that revdel should not be used lightly. But first of all, most socks do not 'need' a total wipe-out of their edits, simple reversion and deletion is fine (RBI/BRI-style, with a sauce of WP:DENY), and even if something remains is not an issue.  And for those where it is, it is anyway a limited situation, most material can be reverted and most material can be deleted (as you describe), only few articles 'need' to stay (I still somewhat disagree with that: even if that person is super-notable, an independent re-creation is nothing of an issue anyway).  I would, normally, not care the least about whether there is material left behind, and have in this case repeatedly said that I have no problems with independent re-creation.
 * It is however those extreme cases (of which I think our resident sock is one) where only a total wipe-out may get the message accross that their contributions here are not welcome. I am certainly not arguing that we should wipe ALL contributions of ALL socks of ALL banned editors.  I am arguing whether that, in extreme (IAR?) cases, it would not be prohibited by our banning policy, or whether we should codify that into our banning policy that this is an option that could be considered (making it not prohibited if it is).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this attitude is just wishful thinking. We frequently had more hassle with the Best known for IP, a community-banned long term abuse case, than necessary, because people indiscriminately reverted his edits and got tied up in edit wars. Because he was a good-faith but disruptive editor, when he argued about the merits of the content (albeit by edit warring with personal attacks) it was difficult to simply dismiss them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am rather convinced that 'leaving him be' is here going to be more problematic. As I said elsewhere, this editor has argued to be eligible for prizes after all their contributions were wiped and they were blocked for socking.  Each sockmaster needs their own application, comparisons may not work.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reasons you have expressed above seems to me to be more an application of Spite (game theory) ie being more concerned about the fact the sock is seeking 'prizes' rather than by demonstration that their contributions are so near universally likely to be in violation of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines as to require indiscriminate deletion. G5 exists to deal with/minimize the disruption from problematic recreation of articles that are simply not worth the time to, or are too difficult to ensure are policy compliant. Either 'content is king' or 'punishing trolls is king' it is not possible to have it both ways and this is why BANREVERT is still a subject of controvercy even in the case of single articles or even edits (eg restoration of vandalism because a banned editor removed it) Since it has been shown to be controversial in minor instances I would think that a reasonable attempt to gain consensus should have been made before doing so on a mass scale. Needless to say I do not find "because they will get prizes" to be a reasonable argument for a mass application of G5.  Jbh  Talk  15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, my argument is that the contributions are by a banned editor who is known for copyright violations (and has remarks as recent as the last sock regarding attributions, and other attributions are .. thin where their articles are machine translated copies of copyrighted material. But I get the point, we prefer to have banned editors game the system.  I am sure your (pl) encouragement is noted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue here, is, that WP:BANREVERT says that we (writ large, as the community) may delete contributions, but it does not say that we must delete contributions. As they are empowered by the community to act on their behalf, admins may delete articles or revert additions by banned editors when they come across them; but when someone questions their actions, and has legitimate reasons to not have deleted that material, the response by the admin should not be "I'm forced to delete them because I must follow policy."  It should be "Here's why I deleted it, but if consensus is to undelete it for I'd be glad to do so."  Policy is never an excuse to do something which runs counter to Wikipedia's mission, and if someone has a reason why not deleting something is better for Wikipedia, then don't delete it.  -- Jayron 32 15:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * you are here completely besides the point. I have undeleted on all requests (and demands) but that is not my point here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that your point was to create a policy that would require us to blundly[sic] use deletion/rev deletion/etc. as a sort of damnatio memoriae against banned users. If that was not your point, could you elaborate because I didn't understand it.  If that was your point, my response is that blindly doing anything is bad, and that in the case of conflict between improving Wikipedia content and discouraging bad behavior, content wins every day and twice on Sundays.  -- Jayron 32 19:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, clearly, you have misread the whole post. I am talking about 'allowing', I am talking about 'an extreme case' (in return, I'll ignore parts of your post).  And I think that that is totally clear in my further remarks, and I appreciate that you want to keep the conflict existing instead of thinking about possible solutions.  Also your encouragement is noted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, is that all. I've been doing that for years. Not sure we need additional policy on that.  There's several trolls I've had a "nuke on sight" policy against for the better part of a decade.  I'm sorry that I mischaracterized your point.  I thought because your started this thread you were looking to do something new.  -- Jayron 32 22:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Maybe I have not been clear.  You were on point with damnatio memoriae, except that I want to use it as an extreme measure and not by default, but that I cannot because we insist that certain 'good' material needs to be kept and that encourages the continued disruption.  It was why I nuked their contributions, but in thiscase received a backlash.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From cursory reading, I believe the "backlash" you received was because you were not aware that the WP:MASSDELETE feature did not automatically filter out articles where other editors have also contributed. You were then accused of ignoring WP:BANREVERT for deleting those articles. Frankly, such a filter would be nice feature improvement (if not an oversight to begin with). In the meantime, use WP:POPUPS (if you aren't already) as an easier way to access an article's history. Otherwise, there should not be a problem in your deleting the users' other pages. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not a big deal, I have tried to undelete where needed and/or requested (and seen the AN thread, I am not sure whether I misread BANREVERT (or the whole of the banning policy) or that people just have different opinions on the application of it). Soit.  I have seen on earlier socks admins undeleting without informing me, and in all cases I do still think that (especially in this case) a fresh rewrite is a much better option (which would avoid below suggestion, and if the person is soooo notable then it should not be an effort).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As we are doing the blaming game anyway, let me just say that I have been very unclear. That saves other people typing.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reset of BMB/BANREVERT discussion
OK, as it is apparently not clear (or just blatanly misinterpreted) that I here plainly suggest what you are almost all blaming me not to suggest, case study number 1:


 * edit 0 - article creation by sock of banned editor
 * edit 1 - update by sock of banned editor
 * edit 2 - update by sock of banned editor

That is the situation that stands at the moment that we block the banned editor. Lets, for the sake of argument, assume that the content is not violating core policies like copyright violations or so, and that someone may want to keep it. Regardless of the content, I MAY chose to delete the whole article at the moment, or I may leave the article (no must!). I have to make a judgement, do I leave the article or not. But I have another possible action I could take with the technical possibilities at hand:


 * edit 3 - I make a 0-edit to the article (or wait for someone else to edit, or brilliantly expand the article to an FA)
 * and I revdel username and content of edits 0, 1 and 2.

Now the content stands (woohoo, I did not delete the article that you don't want me to delete!). It is all there, untouched. But the content cannot be attributed to the banned editor. It can be edited at will, it is NOT deleted. Heck, you can start a XFD if it is not notable, or extract a DYK from it.

Case study number 2:


 * edit 0 - Stub creation by editor X (insignificant edit)
 * edit 1 - massive expansion by banned editor
 * edit 2 - further slight expansion by established editor Y (further an insignificant edit)

That is the situation that stands at the moment we block the banned editor. Could very well be a notable subject, but deletion will very likely upset editor Y (who would ask for immediate undeletion). But we can revdel the content and the username of edit 1. The article still stands, you can still extract a DYK from it. But the DYK cannot be attributed (nor needs to be attributed) to the banned editor.

Case study number 3:


 * hundreds of edits - FA article by numerous editors
 * edit 247 - slight though proper expansion by banned editor

I could rollback the edit, or I can do:


 * edit 248 - null edit to the article
 * and revdel content and username on edit 247.

Again, I have KEPT the content. Maybe edit 247 was a revert of vandalism in edit 232, I did not revert to a vandalised state. But it cannot be attributed to the banned editor.

And it is still a choice .. in all three cases I still have the choice to do nothing, to ignore the edits. But some banned editors should not be encouraged to make even the good edits. They are banned, and that is not an action that the community takes lightly.

My whole proposal is to KEEP all the content that we all so desperate want to keep (and only to delete material that violates core policy, or after XFDs), my proposal (well, actually, it was not even a proposal or an attempt to create policy, it was just a question) is to ONLY remove the attribution of the edits of the banned editor in cases where the attribution of the content is the sole/primary reason why the socking editor is continue to sock (and it is still 'may', 'choice', a, how did I word it above, 'allowed', it is not 'must', it is not 'forced', words that I have never used here or anywhere in the last 24 hours regarding our banning policy). I am NOT arguing for a damnatio memoriae for all sockpuppets, I am NOT arguing that I HAVE to delete/revdel everything that any banned editor contributes, I am not even arguing that all edits by a banned editor should be reverted (I am even arguing to keep that). I am only asking whether BMB/BANREVERT allows to apply revdel, or whether this should be an option. (my apologies for my sarcasm) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that should someone do as you suggest they would have committed a willful copyright violation by removing attribution of the person who actually wrote the text. There is a huge difference between taking responsibility for a banned editor's edit and taking credit for it. Jbh  Talk  21:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * REVDEL does not remove that. The record still exists, it isjust not public.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But that is why I asked in the first place.. is this allowed. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would think not. If the attribution is no longer public then it is not, as I understand it, adequate for copyright purposes. Copyright attribution needs to be visible to everyone not just admins. Jbh  Talk  21:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * do not think that I think this is the best solution,   but  if we did, it would be another of the cases where excessively detailed attention to the nuances of copyright apparently  prevent us from doing things we need to do to improve the encyclopedia.  We could solve it in the way we usually do when our mutually incompatible absolute rules box  ourselves into a corner--devise some elaborate workaround.-- in this, perhaps a  list of the (banned) editors for each part we keep, word by word if necessary.  Or we could use our other customary device, make a rule that causes great inconvenience, and just ignore it.  I know enough  not  to suggest the heresy, that substantial  compliance with copyright is sufficient.   DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the 'revdel but keep content' is already at the stage of "elaborate workaround" and solidly into policy violating. See below. In the case of removing attribution from entire articles or large swatches of creative content we would not even be in "substantial compliance with copyright" (is that a thing?) . IANL and all but I rather strongly suspect that the 'perpetual license' granted when clicking save changes goes away if Wikipedia fails to comply with the attribution requirement. Just think of the trolling opportunities! Jbh  Talk  12:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * More generally, to answer 's question, REV DEL is indeed among the options. Trying to deal with sockpuppets should not be a situation with absolute rules.  The purpose of IAR is to deal with exception situations, and was intended to allow us to not have to make firm rules dealing with every conceivable situation. (As is obvious from the present mass of rules, that's of course another of our principles we only pretend to follow)
 * The really important conclusion from this discussion is that no editor or admin should take action involving multiple articles that might be controversial without obtaining consensus, especially if the action will be difficult to un-do. But if it should happen that someone should do such an action thinking it totally uncontroversial, and find out otherwise, it shouldn't be a matter for blame, just a guide to everyone for the future about what is acceptable here--this sometimes can be hard to predict.  DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not believe policy allows revdel to be used simply to remove attribution. Delete the edits and their content – fine. Delete the edit, keep the content – nope. REVDEL#5 (deletion under deletion policy) is for content', keep the content and it is not applicable. REVDEL#3 (disruptive &amp; little or no relevance or merit to the project) is no harbor either. If the content is being saved it obviously is relevant to the project. IAR is a great safety valve but WP:REVDEL being a policy and copyright being a law I think it better for the project overall that they not be ignored, better to delete ie remove the material completely. This, of course, brings us back to the 'is it better to discourage trolls or is content king' issue. That, in my opinion, comes down to the question of is the content any good. Which brings us full circle to examining material case by case by case until, in general, either a consensus forms for mass deletion or one is able to articulate a reason why material from a given account/sockmaster is more likely than not to be 'bad'. I would also like to note that this is analysis of what I think is allowable per policy and recognition the controversy over the implementation of BANREVERT in the community. I do not know where I really land on the BANREVERT issue other than to say when using discretion one should consider only benefit/possible harm to the encyclopedia and not externalities like 'prizes'. WP:DENY has a place in that calculation but so long as the community's primary concern is content it can not be the overriding concern.  Jbh  Talk  12:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I see this analysis of Jbh (and the way I looked at it after their earlier comments) I think indeed that using revdel in this way may be a stretch of copyright here. Thank you both, this discussion is now going in the direction of where my initial concerns are, and the solutions that we could find to resolve this.  Either we (I) accept that we keep encouraging the sockpuppetry, and continue our game of whac-a-mole, or we go a delete-and-independently-recreate type of game.  By the way, Jbh, I don't think that selective deletion (as opposed to revdel) is a solution then either, it still removes the attribution.  Revdel is only a solution for the revisions that do not stay.
 * The solutions are then: or we selectively keep the material that is adopted (a status quo, and the whac-a-mole game continues), or we concede that we throw away some good material, that through adoption could be independently recreated (collect the crude data and the refs out of the deleted revisions to assist). I don't think that content drivers will concede to that solution (seen how I was approached on some of my deletions), and I am sure that any noticeboard discussion on such topics will go nowhere.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is one of your primary concerns that this banned user will collect a trophy via a sock? It seems like it should be common sense to vacate any trophies retroactively if it was won while in violation of a ban. Would that decrease the motivation to delete "useful" edits?—Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically my concern is that certain socks get encouragement because their contributions are kept (and in extreme cases, they (may) get awarded (win monetary prizes or just get recognition) for those contributions). I am trying to explore if we have ways to perform 'damnatio memoriae' in such cases. If I identify these socks early on, which I have sometimes, that is basically what happens - those accounts do not have content edits left after nuking their material.  But their game of staying under the radar and getting the recognition (which they in this case very clearly get!) is enough encouragement to keep socking.  Add in this case NFCC problems, iffy translations and bad attributions we have a case of encouragement to continue disruption.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (1)"Copyright is a law" -- enWP policy deliberately takes a very limited employment of the legally very broad fair use permissions . For CC, there's only the legal need for substantial compliance, and we meet it more fully than any other large site in the world.
 * (2) at this point, removal of content is the only available weapon against undeclared paid editing, and the socking that is invariably connected with it.
 * (3) The incompatible needs of keeping content and discouraging socks, together with the immpossibility fo finding all socks, will always make it impossible to have a hard and fast solution.  DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So basically, the problem is that a certain banned editor has received prizes, and the solution is to revdel their contributions? Well, this sounds awfully roundabout and it leads to disproportionate collateral damage (= making a mess of article histories, and possibly running afoul of copyright law). I'm not aware of how the specific prize-giving mechanisms work here, but no matter how rigid and byzantine they might be, surely it must be possible to quote IAR and simply not give a prize to a banned editor, or rescind it if has already been given? – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * no, the participation for prizes is an extreme of it, they fully use the paradox as described in WP:BMB - their reason to sock is because their edits stay. So basically, the disruption continues because their edits are allowed to stand .. and this is not a unique case, though probably an extreme of it.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And they would not sock if their contributions stayed but were unlinked from their name (which is what revdeling seems to accomplish)? But then the more important question is whether we want that content in the first place. If the user was known for producing unreliable, biased or misleading content, then the whole content would simply go. And if the user was known for producing impeccable content but was banned for behavioural reasons, then well, we don't like them but we like their content, so all we can do is tell them to go away, but keep the content, without getting too inveted in stopping them from coming back with more. – Uanfala (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no guarantees for the future, I don't know whether that would make such sockpuppets stop. On the other hand I can guarantee that when we keep contributions of such editors it sends the message 'you do good work', giving them incentive to show off and continue socking.  The material is certainly not impeccable with bad translations with barely enough attribution to the source, bad attributions etc.  We are limited here, and I was exploring options.  To me, there are options if we want to that could give the best of both (but revdel does not seem that option).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 14:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If their contributions stayed but were unlinked from their name, they could turn around file a DMCA complaint and/or sue the WMF for violating the CC BY-SA 3.0 License that their contributions were released under. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Hence my question here (I was afraid there were problems with this solution). So the only way to fully apply WP:DENY in such cases is full deletion and independent re-creation of the articles (which will never gain consensus as it may delete contributions already made by several editors).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * However, WP:BANREVERT precludes speedy deleting pages where others have made a substantial edit. I wouldn't be compelled to change that policy to support the DENY essay either.  There's just as much of a chance that this rogue editor is doing what they are doing merely because they can and to watch others react.  What I would suggest could be done is to explain to the other editors of the affected pages about the situation with the banned editor, and ask if they would waive their edits and support speedy deletion with no prejudice if they recreated it with their own wording.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is basically what I meant. Seen the reactions to my last spree .. I don't think that that will gain a lot of traction.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would on a case-by-case basis, possibly with different editors involved, so the results might not always be the same. It's liekly the best option, barring newfound support for policy changes. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions proposal for Taiwan stations
Hi. I am proposing a naming conventions for Taiwan stations for better consistency. Feedback welcomed at User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (Taiwan stations). Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the formalization of Cross-namespace redirects (or variant) into a policy or guideline
Should Cross-namespace redirects (or a variation of it) be formalized into a policy or guideline? -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The only useful content – "cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted" – is already incorporated in WP:R2. Given that R2 explicitly allows deletion in the case of target namespaces other than just Wikipedia:, the essay can be said to misrepresent what the consensus actually is. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The entire "CNRs are bad because..." argument is bogus and contradicts Shortcut. Many CNRs are bad. Some are good. As an example, WP:1AM is a CNR because I don't want to put that essay in WP space where anyone can change it but rather I want to keep it in userspace where I have control over it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

General Sanctions page
Please take a look at WP:General sanctions. That page has never been classified as a policy, essay or just what it is. Please offer your thoughts in that page's talk thread found here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

When to use the press template on an article talk page
I searched for past discussions without success, so posting here.

Hoping to find where there's been consensus on when it's appropriate or inappropriate to add the Press template to an article talk page, and the sorts of articles that should be included.

Press adds a box in the top/banner section of the talk page with a list of sources under the heading "This page has been mentioned by [a/multiple] media [organization/organizations]".

Is this only for reliable sources? If not, is this for any mention of the article anywhere? Should all instances of being mentioned by included? If not, how should we select?

In many or even most cases, none of this would be controversial and we can just say "whatever the local consensus is." But I think it would be useful to have some kind of guidance, especially for controversial topics that attract comment from partisan sources displeased that the Wikipedia article does not fit into a preferred narrative.

We see this sort of complaint pretty consistently with our articles on pseudoscience topics, for example. We've also seen it with US politics-related articles where one side or the other is upset at the coverage of a topic or the conduct of users editing a topic.

The press box is one of the first things someone will see when coming to the talk page. If you have some concern, and you see it sensationalized in an unreliable partisan source, that will intensify the ensuing discussion. If you didn't have a concern, and see an ill-informed complaint in the headline of a source in the press box, that will have an effect on the ensuing discussion. Why is it desirable to involve these mentions in discussions of how to improve our article? None of this is to say that external sources are never useful. It is indeed useful to understand how uninvolved/outside parties view Wikipedia. But editors can link to them on their own in the context of those discussions without accumulating them to display as a smorgasbord of uncontextualized knee-jerk reactions, opinion pieces, unreliable sources, etc. in addition to the thoughtful critiques.

Ultimately, I think that we need some sort of even loose standards for these boxes. Either their use at all (i.e. maybe omit from controversial subjects, perhaps defined by those subject to discretionary sanctions), their content (using reliable sources only, for example), or their styling (adding a link to media coverage on a separate page, collapsing by default, etc.). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the point of those was to alert regular editors that people might be coming to the page because of the press mention and to be prepared to deal with an influx of (possibly angry) newbies. In which case it wouldn't be limited to RS mentions, but rather to mentions that would be expected to generate high volumes of traffic and edits. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this were the case, we would presumably only keep them there for a short period when that would be relevant. I don't think that's typically why we use those, however. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Figured this had something to do with Jeong. I think the template is useful for a couple reasons. First, as pointed out above, it has a function similar to Template:Not a ballot, in alerting editors that there may be an influx of new, and potentially none too pleased editors showing up. Second, it alerts experienced editors that there are people watching, and if you don't behave, you're liable to find yourself mentioned in a reliable source.
 * As to inclusion, there simply has to be some standard for reliability. As a thought experiment, you can't go write a blog entitled Wikipedia editor GreenMeansGo was a total dickhead on this one article. and then post it in a press template because it's "some coverage" of the article.
 * As to the issues of BLP raised on the Jeong article, I'm less than sympathetic, so long as the source would otherwise be reliable enough for us to normally use in an article. If the Guardian writes an article entitled Wikipedia editor GreenMeansGo was a total dickhead on this one article., well, they're a reliable source of the type we regularly use in articles to support BLP content, and the issue of POV by weight doesn't really apply to the talk page the same way as it applies to the article...and maybe it would be helpful for that guy to consider that his behavior was worth mentioning by the Guardian. Reliable sources are what determines if article content is a BLP violation, but BLP doesn't apply to the content of sources themselves.  G M G  talk  17:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're only using reliable sources, we're often going to be omitting the ones that have the most potential for sending a bunch of "none too pleased editors". Breitbart, to use the example above, is not typically considered a reliable source for most things, especially a BLP like Jeong. Also, just so you know, The Guardian has told me repeatedly that they won't publish that article. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, BLP reins supreme. So any benefit of notification is always going to be outweighed wrt policy if the source is of such low quality, making such a large claim that we couldn't use it in mainspace. Not saying it must be used in mainspace to count, because that has an interplay of other considerations like WEIGHT. In the case of Jeong, the article was also mentioned by the Atlantic, which is the kind of thing I would expect in a lot of these cases.
 * But in the case of Jeong, including the title of the piece was including content on a living person. Specifically calling her racist, because that's exactly what it said in the title of the piece. That's not something we would normally put into mainspace and be satisfied sourcing it to Bb. If on the other hand, the content that was added to the talk page in the form of the title was something like Giant Wikipedia edit war over NYT reporter., well then that's a claim about an event that happened on Wikipedia, which has a much lower burden of proof than whether someone is racist, and that might be something that Bb is acceptable for.  G M G  talk  17:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Ben Carson one, I would say in 2015, when the Breitbart article came out, yes, the template would be appropriate. In 2018, when the Breitbart article is 3 years old and probably not driving angry traffic of people looking to right great wrongs, it's appropriate to remove the template.~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, following up on this, what if we just add something like this to the /doc for the template:


 * Thoughts?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good starting point. I took another stab at the wording based on this, in part to avoid talking about BLP then RS then BLP in that order (but with some other tweaks):
 * I would say we should move the specific wording discussion over to that page, but I'd like to hear from those dissenting that we should take this approach. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick note before the discussion moves elsewhere. This is just a phrasing tweak, but "use of external links" isn't a type of page, so the parallelism doesn't quite work.
 * Cheers, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with any of these versions. Brought it up here because the talk page for the template looks pretty dead. I'd say let's just be bold and add one and see if anyone objects.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. For the sake of moving forward, since nobody has expressed an objection to these proposed bits of text, I went ahead with XOReaster's version. Wasn't sure whether to create a new subsection or just put it near the top. Opted for the latter. Anyone can change, of course. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with any of these versions. Brought it up here because the talk page for the template looks pretty dead. I'd say let's just be bold and add one and see if anyone objects.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. For the sake of moving forward, since nobody has expressed an objection to these proposed bits of text, I went ahead with XOReaster's version. Wasn't sure whether to create a new subsection or just put it near the top. Opted for the latter. Anyone can change, of course. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the formalization of a policy/guideline pertaining to wiki linking drafts inside articles
Should a policy or guideline be developed/formalized relating to the cross-namespace wiki linking of drafts within articles (ie article A contains a wikilink to Draft B, which itself does not have a mainspace article)? To clarify: I dont mean redirects, I am talking of links to drafts within articles. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Pinging those involved in the now withdrawn RfC above, which was intended to be this. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 18:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No drafts should not be linked to from mainspace. It defeats the entire purpose of them being unindexed work spaces. We’d never link to a userspace draft from an article, why would we link to a regular one. Also, to the question as to if we need an RfC: just add this to WP:DRAFTS boldly. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is what I am proposing. That a policy be developed regarding (most likely not allowing) this practice. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is already covered at WP:LINKSTYLE: "Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Self-references to avoid)." &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No as this is already covered in the WP:LINKSTYLE guideline. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? WP:LINKSTYLE appears to cover it sufficiently. Is there a problem? Does it need to be clarified? Perhaps I misunderstand the proposal. Redlinks are fine until the article is ready for mainspace. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Drafts are drafts and per WP:LINKSTYLE are not supposed to be anywhere near the mainspace area. As Tony says, linking to them from mainspace would defeat the entire purpose of drafts. Needing an RfC to clarify the policy to cover this is bureaucratic silliness - just do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No The issue demonstrates how disruptive the idea of draft space is. For example, someone recently suggested Anita Corbin as a topic by posting a redlink.  I created a stub for this topic and created several links into it via redirects and links in other articles.  If the article had been created in draft space then, either there wouldn't be any links or we'd have this fuss about WP:LINKSTYLE.  So, the answer is to create topics in mainspace and deprecate draftspace.  Simples. Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No Drafts are by definition unsuitable for our readers. This would also be a PROMO/SPAM nightmare. Propose WP:SNOW close. That such is forbidden is implicit in WP:CSD and, per above, WP:LINKSTYLE so adding more policy is redundant. Jbh  Talk  23:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC) last edited

FOOTYN, NFOOTY and sports teams.
I have noticed an issue recently on AfD's on football teams. People are citing WP:FOOTYN as if it is a subject specific notability guideline (SNG). It looks like a link to an official SNG (the correct link is actually WP:NFOOTY), but FOOTYN is an essay maintained by Wikiproject Football. FOOTYN as a keyword seems to me to clearly be a lookalike POV-fork of WP:NFOOTY, and also easy to mistake for that one. Moreover, its contents are contrary to the official SNG on the topic, which clearly states that teams must pass the General Notability Guideline (See: Notability_(sports)). Teams used to be covered by WP:NCORP, before it was rewritten earlier this year, when teams were excluded from NCORP. In the old NCORP guideline teams were given no special treatment or automatic notability criterion either. After NCORP was rewritten, Notability_(sports) was changed to redirect to WP:GNG instead, which essentially changed nothing about notability for teams (still given no special treatment and still subject only to the GNG).

As far as I can see, members of Wikiproject Football seem to be making up rules that are contrary to our guidelines as written, and citing them as if they were an official Subject Specific Notability Guideline. We need to do one of two things:
 * 1) Make an official SNG for sports teams.
 * 2) Properly enforce the requirement for teams to meet the GNG.

Which should it be? I'd like to hear some other views on this situation. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide examples of where its being in AFDs? I mean, I agree that FOOTYN should not be overriding NFOOTY/NSPORTS as the community SNG for sports. --M asem (t) 03:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've only ever seen this happen for people trying to cite WP:NFOOTY, but getting the wrong acronym.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The essay WP:FOOTYN is currently being cited at Articles for deletion/Dontan PCCM F.C.. FOOTYN clearly says it's an essay, though I can see where some people might not click on it or read the fineprint. I don't know if there is any reason to belive that the name is meant to deceive that itis NFOOTY, or if people just misunderstand that a "real" SNG should not reside at a WikiProject.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that there was originally a listing for (English) football clubs on NCORP, but it was removed for being too specific, rather than not being a valid SNG. There have been a few discussions at WP:NSPORT about adding clubs to the guideline, but IMO it would be difficult as there would be different criteria for each sport and probably also each country within each sport (as every country will have a slightly different cut-off point), so it would have to be extremely long and detailed. As a result of this lack of formal notation in an SNG, the club notability criteria has ended up being listed at the FOOTYN essay, so that it is available somewhere for reference in discussions. If there is unhappiness about this, perhaps it might be better to have this listed at Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, as there's clear consensus on club notability for certain countries derived from AfDs over the years. Number   5  7  09:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The removal you cite was in 2007 it was inserted without discussion after a brief discussion between two editors here and was only part of the page for a little over 6 months. I didn't link the AfD because I didn't want to canvass it, but its been linked above by someone else. The AfD that brought this to my attention was Articles_for_deletion/White_Ensign_F.C._(2nd_nomination). SNGs should generally be a guide which helps us identify notable things easily, not which help non-notable topics cheat their way onto Wikipedia and skip verification via the GNG. Both these clubs fail to have sufficient sourcing for the GNG, but Wikiproject football editors want to keep them anyway and are citing an essay they wrote as if it were an SNG (some people in the above linked AfD have actually called FOOTYN an SNG). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correcting the above, it was not inserted without discussion (the edit summary actually references this discussion). Also, FOOTYN was only cited by one editor in the White Ensign discussion – I referred to the numerous previous discussions that show that there is a consensus around the cutoff point for English club notability. Given that this cutoff has repeatedly been tested at AfD, which is open to the entire community, I don't think it can be simply referred to as some kind of local consensus at the Football WikiProject. Number   5  7  13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Corrected above, but it really has no relevance whether or not two editors discussed something and it was added to the policy page over a decade ago and remained on the page for half a year. It isn't there now, and these clubs don't meet the GNG, that indicates that whatever the criteria that Wikiproject Football has decided on as a good bar to represent a rule of thumb for notable topics, it is too low of a bar and needs to be raised. It totally is a local consensus, and it is rather clear that most of the editors !voting on these football AfDs are Members of the Wikiproject or football fans. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont know enough about football to say for sure one way or another, but it's conceivable that English football has more coverage, and certain notability criteria may apply there, that might not work in other countries, such as Thailand in this case. The danger I've always seen with some sport SNGs is that they assume coverage is equal in all countries, and "foreign" team articles or bios may take any foreign language source that Google finds without having any idea if it's truly reliable.  Other editors might push for equal notability to counter perceived systemic bias.—Bagumba (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * White Ensign F.C., the other AfD linked above, is an english club that also has insufficient coverage to meet the GNG, yet was kept by citing the Wikiproject essay and its 'step 6 or above' rule. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I !voted "delete" at that AfD. My point was regarding national cups; they might be sufficient for notability in England, but it's projecting to automatically presume the same applies to all countries e.g. Thailand in the case of Dontan PCCM F.C.—Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To mitigate some of the naming concern of FOOTYN, I've added a hatnote to the essay pointing to the NFOOTY SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've seen a couple of these AfDs come up recently. I think turning this into a SNG will be very helpful for the following reasons:
 * In England, there's longstanding community consensus on which leagues are notable based on the level of coverage they receive, which is assumed to pass GNG. White Ensign was promoted into one of these leagues. Under WP:NCORP, notability is not inherited, an undiscussed problem with the AfD. Having a SNG allows all teams in a notable league to receive articles based on inherited notability, since all teams in a notable league should receive similar notable coverage.
 * A couple months ago I created the article Black Forest FC amongst others based off of WP:FOOTYN as they play in the Botswana Premier League. It passes WP:GNG as the Botswana league gets good coverage, but it may not be obvious. Even with editorial control many Botswana news sites use WordPress which may raise flags for some editors and the article's a stub since information is difficult to find. I have created pages teams especially in Africa which get promoted to their country's top flight, in leagues covered by independent sites like Scoresway, and in leagues you can bet on, but information on these teams can be hard to find. I think playing in a country's top flight is a clear notability marker.
 * WP:NCORP isn't really written with football clubs in mind. The coverage received by a football club is entirely different to coverage received by a startup or non-profit. For instance, unlike most of Wikipedia, for a football club, ongoing routine coverage is actually an indicator of notability.
 * I don't think many club articles currently fail WP:GNG anyways. As I pointed out in the Dontan PCCM FC article, while good articles about them were hard to find, they had been covered at several points in time by local television stations (though I am unsure to what capacity), and they received a number of mentions from their F.A. cup game - this being a 5th division amateur club. That AfD felt to me like the exception to the rule. SportingFlyer  talk  12:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, period. Your first point cannot work - just because they play in a league that is well-covered does not make the teams that play it in well-covered and thus meeting the GNG. If you have an SNG, you have to show that there are merit criteria that exist that would demonstrate that if a team met that, then there is likely coverage to be found in secondary sources (not just routine recapping of games). And I strongly caution that one with country-specific language is going to be problematic under WP:BIAS. It may end up that many England teams will make a cut while many teams from non-English countries will have little or no support. --M asem  (t) 13:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've noted, and unlike most other corporations, routine, reliable, secondary independent sports coverage of a team actually demonstrates notability - it means the team is worthy of getting noticed repeatedly again in the media. (The same argument does not hold true for people.) I disagree with you on the inherited notability point - having looked through many different sources, a well-covered league implies all of the teams in the league will be covered to the point of WP:GNG, which reflects current community consensus (over a decade.) SportingFlyer  talk  14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We will not accept routine coverage as demonstration of notability. Routine coverage in sports (which is primarily box scores and results) is rarely secondary. We want non-routine coverage that goes into facets of the team's history, organization, etc. and not just how well they did season to season, otherwise that just becomes a stat book which fails WP:NOT And I'm saying flat out that WP does not recognize inherited notability. We will not accept an SNG that says if a league is notable, its individual teams must be notable too. --M asem (t) 14:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be very unlikely that the club section at WP:FOOTYN would pass as an SNG or inclusion in an existing SNG. Given that it is currently being used as an SNG by members for Wikiproject Football, it might be worthwhile to craft an RfC to demonstrate that the community does not support this. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That or MFD FOOTYN. An essay being misused that often that bypasses the general approach to developing SNGs is ripe for deletion.  (Note that an essay outlining how to use NSPORT/NCORP/GNG to assess notability of a club is reasonable, but not something that creates notability criteria less restrictive than those.) --M asem  (t) 21:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have considered that, but I would expect that any such MfD would be flooded by Wikproject football editors as well. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If routine coverage is simply box scores and results, I don't see the issue - it's not as if we say clubs are notable since they have their box scores printed in the back of the paper. The clubs we're arguing about in England get coverage here  and here  (you can buy this at newsstands), and before the internet you could go to the bookshop and buy books which talked about all of the teams in these leagues. No one is trying to use WP:FOOTYN to shoe-in Bob's Sunday Leaguers into notability - it just reflects long-standing consensus on which teams are to meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  22:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Using the most recent AfD as an example: You mean this coverage? or this coverage? I'll take your word that those sites are reliable sources, but they have nothing to support GNG for that club. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're searching too narrowly, try just "Cray Valley." SportingFlyer  talk  22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is another AfD at Articles for deletion/Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C. where a similar and related discussion is taking place. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have made a change to the WP:FOOTYN page. Without changing the criteria specifically, I have modified the wording so reflect that the page is not an SNG. My edit can be found HERE; generally I removed the prescriptive "All" in various sections, and changed "assumed notable" to "generally notable". There isn't actually a problem with the WikiProject having a page which indicates what level articles should be targeted for creation, but there is a problem when it approaches the severity of wording of an SNG, and then starts being used as one. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I support this edit. I would add a note to clarify "generally," something reflecting the Dontan AfD, where clubs playing in notable competitions that are unsourced, are sourced only to primary sources, or contain unverifiable references, etc. do not benefit from the presumption of notability. SportingFlyer  talk  03:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NSPORT is too vague with respect to teams, even more, it doesn't tell anything. Teams' notability are basically the same as athletes', having successfully competed nationally or internationally. I think that that equivalence should be stated in WP:NSPORT. Then there should be criteria easy to check for the notability, such division 1 to 2 in the league of country X. The point with WP:NSPORT is avoid lengthy discussions about deletion of athletes/teams/clubs that are clearly notable. Per W (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If a SNG doesn't specially call out to one facet of that subject area (teams in the sporting area), that just means that one uses the GNG for evaluating notability. The point of any SNG is not to show things are "clearly notable" but that in lieu of the time and effort needed to do a full source search (typically requiring searching print works), we presume that a topic having gained some type of merit is notable and sources can be found due at least to achieving that merit. That presumption is rebuttable, so that if someone does do a reasonable source search and finds no sources, we can consider deletion of that topic. SNGs are not inclusion guidelines. --M asem  (t) 13:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted AfD Articles for deletion/Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C. (mentioned above) has been relisted, and can use more participants to reach a consensus on football notability criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Let's add Template:Draft to all drafts

 * Moved to Village pump (proposals) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Twitter Centralization
What's the policy on social media and Wikipedia? I think it's not a bad idea to have a Twitter hashtag to highlight articles that need work, for example. The most recent tweets would not necessarily be of most importance, just more recent discoveries or recently created articles. From here, WikiEditors can have a centralized place from which to find new articles to work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polariz36 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Organizing people to improve the quality of articles (such as to make it compliant with Wikipedia policies such as the WP:MOS or WP:NPOV or WP:V and the like) is a good thing. Organizing people to disrupt Wikipedia is a bad thing (such as to create violations of the above policies).  It all depends on intent.  If it makes Wikipedia better, do it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello while you might get some info here (and Jayron has some good points) this ref desk is not really the place for your question. I would suggest you move it to the Village pump (policy) where you will get a better response. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that this would backfire, attracting vandals and POV pushers instead of those who could help in positive ways. If we do this, we have to do it VERY carefully. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is none, Twitter is an outside organization. This would be no different from having a policy on the user of anything outside of Wikipedia, like forums, Facebook, Youtube, etc... It's nothing we can legislate, or should. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That can be done using on-Wiki pages: we have maintenance categories, wikiprojects and their article alerts/todo-lists, etc. — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on political userboxes
Should userboxes related to politics be explicitly forbidden and deleted? See WP:UBCR and Userboxes/Politics. --Pudeo (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as nom We currently have several fascist, communist and anarchist userboxes among others ranging from abortion to anti-psychiatry. The userboxes have been nominated for deletion once in 2011, but the nomination was considered pointy and another venue than MfD was suggested. Recently we had a succesful MfD for an "alt-right pepe" userbox, and in the comments several editors requested a discussion on all political userboxes. One argument for keeping them has been that it's good if extremists actually self-identify with them, but I believe conduct should be the focus regardless. I was rather surprised to see that WP:UBCR already forbids political advocacy in userboxes, but a community consensus is likely required in something that would affect so many userboxes and userpages. --Pudeo (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, political userboxes are fine, and this has no relation to whether or not we should block Nazis for openly displaying the symbols of their vile and genocidal ideology, which is the reason this RfC is being started (reference: Special:Permalink/855613561). Allowing political userboxes is not the same as allowing inherently disruptive hate speech, and the false equivalencies that this RfC might be used to imply should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. There is no place for active advocacy for Nazism on Wikimedia projects: doing so is inherently disruptive and will lead to an immediate block. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you do support removing the fascist userboxes, though? Or why should they exist if inserting them on your userpage is instant indef block? --Pudeo (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I refuse to participate in a discussion that draws false equivalencies between Nazism and any other ideology. While I am certainly no fascist, there is a real and meaningful difference between your standard ultranationalist far-right politician and someone who thinks Jews and Roma and other races shouldn't exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to badger anyone's oppose, but I just want to state that I don't believe other totalitarian ideologies are necessarily false equivalences. The European Parliament recognizes the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism which will be observed on this Thursday. --Pudeo (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Tony was saying it's a false equivalence to equate fascism with Nazism.
 * I actually agree with him on that point, but actually I don't agree that Nazi userboxes should be banned. I understand I'm probably not going to win on that point.  But all the standard arguments apply.  If someone actually supports Nazism, better to know.  And I don't see any clear place to draw the line. --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Political userboxes are clearly, unavoidably divisive and arguably inflammatory, and thus violate the WP:UBCR guideline. In addition they facilitate canvassing and undermine WP:AGF. We are here to build/maintain an encyclopedia, not engage in self-expression or political advocacy. We allow quite a bit of self-expression, but not when it impedes the project. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If such userboxes are "active advocacy", how can we possibly allow any political userboxes? If it's just for self-identification, how could any particular ones be problematic? Wikipedia is not to be used for advocating any political ideology. The one argument in favor of allowing such infoboxes is that they aren't advocacy. --Yair rand (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sun Tzu: "Know your enemy." These userboxes are often helpful when assessing the need for sanctions or other actions. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Personally, I don't have any political userboxes on my page (I had to check because I didn't remember) but I don't see the harm in allowing others to have them. Wikipedia is not censored and as SBHB says above, it can be helpful when assessing the actions of others.  Also, we should default to allowing users to have the freedom to have what they want on their page unless there's a compelling reason not to let them, and don't see such a compelling reason. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - (See this for the most recent revisitation of this subject that I'm aware of.)
 * Oppose, "First they came for the political user boxes, and I said nothing. Then they came back for the pretzels". Randy Kryn (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Something something baby bathwater. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for better or worse WP:NOTCENSORED. Individual cases can still be handled at ANI as they have in the past. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose They can be helpful sometimes. But I do not seem them as disruptive and if they do end up being disruptive it is generally easy to resolve with a quick block or topic ban where needed. PackMecEng (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as needless meddling on other people's user pages. I personally don't use political user boxes, mostly because I am a centrist and generally don't have strong views one way or the other and also because it shouldn't matter what your political beliefs are; Wikipedia's content is decided by coverage in sources. However, if others find them useful in their personal pages, there isn't a problem if they express themselves with them. If other people get offended by anyone placing any of the user boxes found at Userboxes/Politics on their user page, then that sounds like a personal problem to me. Whats next? Do we delete all the sports userboxes because expressing support for this team or that team is divisive? My reading of WP:UBCR does not prohibit userboxes that are a simple declaration of personal views or beliefs. If it did, we also wouldn't be allowed any sports or religion userboxes. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose just toss the Nazis, if one shows up, out with the rest of the trash. Just because some people or vile (Well, in wiki-speak 'believe in a vile ideology' but … no Nazis are vile, period.) that should not be used as an excuse to curtail everyone else's ability to express themselves. Jbh  Talk  00:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think if a political userbox is problematic enough to cause concern it should be brought up in an appropriate venue and get consensus fo its deletion. We should treat them on a case by case basis; because sweeping policies on issues like this tend to create more problems than they seem to solve. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose These routine userboxes are fine and not at all inflammatory. I can collaborate to build an encyclopedia with thoughtful, collaborative monarchists and Marxist-Leninists. Most of those who post Nazi and overtly racist userboxes immediately engage in disruptive editing, and can be blocked on that basis. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As long as the userbox itself does not promote directly radical content, then it's acceptable. As others noted, if there's an issue with a user's POV pushing, these types of userboxes might help understand that better to take action, but by themselves they are not harmful and we should not prejudge people based on having them. I do want to stress that we should be clear between the difference between a userbox that might say "X is a member of the Nazi party" (not hateful by itself) vs "X believes we should genocide all members of (race)" (extremely hateful) which absolutely is a no-no and needs to be deleted asap. --M asem (t) 17:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur. Similar to my recent objections when an editor was blocked for displaying File:Black Sun.svg on their userpage (i.e. at this AN/I thread). — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 02:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - In the United States, some Republicans think that being a Democrat is treasonous, and some Democrats think that all Republicans are crypto-Nazis. The fact that these perceptions are objectively wrong does not reduce their destructive power.  We don't need to contribute to polarization.  Maybe things are less polarized in Canada and the United Kingdom and India, but a display of political userboxes contributes, in however small a way, to polarization.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's useful to know where someone's coming from, as long as they're not coming from somewhere that denies the humanity of others. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Political views should not affect Wikipedia editing, which is supposed to be neutral, but if people are willing to be honest about the position they're coming from, and trying not to be biased towards, that's a good thing. Most people will have a political view one way or the other and it should be entirely fine for an editor to express that side of themselves. They should be judged on their editing, not their identification. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 21:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be judged on the character of their content, not the color of their skin (I use monobook). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ideologies should be left at the door when editing. (On a side note: similar to cognitive dissonance, identity ≠ to beliefs.) WP:Child protection aside, if any editor is allowed to identify, then all editors should be allowed to identify in a simple manner on their userpage however they wish. Otherwise, we are no longer "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" but rather "the encyclopedia edited by those who choose to identify with views deemed politically correct or remain silent." — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 02:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose if someone wants to tell us who they are, we should let them. I'd be opposed to egregious promotion, but a userbox doesn't rise to that level. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as others have stated it is good for the editors to identify what is important to them. This is done in a controlled way with userboxes. If they are not allowed then free form expression would still happen, and that may be more offensive to others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as too simple, too much devil in the detail, "related to politics" crosses the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable. Editors should declare their biases, and userboxes serve this purpose.  On the other hand, WP:POLEMIC can be argued to make excessive political userboxes unrelated to the editor's editing not OK.  I think this is better argued from the WP:POLEMIC line.  It doesn't really matter whether excessive advocacy of politics is couched in a userbox or some other form of expression.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed; this would negatively affect the user pages of inactive and deceased users, and this is so broad and vague that it could prevent people from adding userboxes that say things like "This user supports gender equality" and "This user likes democracy" and "This user thinks climate change is not a hoax invented by the Chinese". Jc86035 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - User space is less regulated which I think is fine. It's also best to deal with these on a case by case basis.  If you see an obviously inappropriate box/page, blank it and watchlist it; if reverted, tag it for CSD or nominate it for deletion.  If a particular editor persists making or displaying inappropriate boxes, also warn and report as necessary.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose They are no different from other users boxes which tell others something about the people who place them. TFD (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Raining the snow... Carrite (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is completely unacceptable for some political ideologies to be allowed to be promoted on userpages and others prohibited. Wikipedia does not ban people based on their personal views, nor take any side of one position over another. We currently have plenty of userboxes openly and explicitly endorsing terrorism, fascism, communism, and most everything else. Either all must be accepted or none. We cannot take sides, period. --Yair rand (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a comment on the RfC, but here's an interesting link in case anyone's interested: Jimbo on Userboxes. --Yair rand (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that this is posted after the thread was closed the link you provided is to comments that are more than 12 years ago. A whole lotta water has gone under (and over) the bridge userbox-wise since then. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Still, some might find it interesting. (I don't object to removing the comment if you think that the posting after the close is a problem, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay to make an archive page readable?
I was looking for an old discussion and found Village pump (proposals)/Archive 73, which is rendered increasingly illegible as you go down the page by a series of broken signatures. Of course the boilerplate at the top includes "Please do not edit the contents of this page." I made a cursory search but didn't find a real rule about that. Obviously fixing the broken formatting would be an improvement, so maybe just WP:IAR. What do you think? Ntsimp (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. There's at least one bot trying to get around to this, but if you see something, fix it. I have been. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * for the most part: yes. If you are come upon a technical issue such as a LintError that does not change the meaning of the page, then yes go for it.  Don't go on a rampage and "fix" hundreds+ pages without some discussion or a bot request though.  For example: If someone has a   that causes the whole page to be in strikeout, fix that bad closing tag, don't "fix" it by removing the opening tag. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The community knows the difference between constructive repair that helps users down the road and vandalism. Thank you, for your un-sung wikignome service. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors
This post regards the above discussions linked. The question is: Can major layout changes be implemented to a Featured List, based on the consensus of two supporting editors, with the changes themselves based only on a guideline?

MOS:TVPLOT, the guideline in question, states that for television series' season articles, an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary. This is not a policy, and suggests "should not" rather than "cannot". proposed a merger proposal of the prose content in each season article to List of Game of Thrones episodes, the Featured List in question, on the Episode List's talk page. He received the support of two editors, and later deemed this enough to close the merger discussion himself with the result of a consensus.

Should such a discussion have been advertised elsewhere, such as WP:VPPOL, WT:TV and/or WT:MOSTV? As can be seen, after the discussion was started, no advertising was made beside the use of merger templates on the article. Is the consensus from two supporting editors enough to make such a change to a Featured List? --  Alex TW 08:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The consensus to merge was determined per WP:MERGECLOSE, as there had been no discussion in eight days, and there was unanimous consent by the participants. The information pages make no distinction between normal, good or featured articles/lists when closing a discussion. All four steps of WP:MERGEPROP were followed carefully. Advertising the proposal is not required, and in this case it would have been unnecessary as well, as the List of Game of Thrones episodes is in the watchlist of 235 users, while each season article is in the watchlist of 90 users. Furthermore, the season articles, where the merger templates were added to notify readers of the proposal, received a total of |Game_of_Thrones_(season_2)|Game_of_Thrones_(season_3)|Game_of_Thrones_(season_4)|Game_of_Thrones_(season_5)|Game_of_Thrones_(season_6) 114,183 views, while the discussion was open. Wikipedia is not a democracy, where voter turnout is a concern. The discussion was based on arguements, and if anyone did not agree with the proposal or something a participant said, they had the opportunity to object for more than a week. - Radiphus  08:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:MERGECLOSE is another information page, not a policy, and thus common sense should be used to determine the level of consensus required. Two editors on an article promoted so high as a Featured List is by far not enough, especially when zero outside promotion of the discussion was made. Basing this off of the statistics of watchlists and page views is not a valid argument; you do not know that everyone uses their watchlist, or read this specific article's talk page, or saw the merged template added, and how many of those views were from registered editors or at least from users who knew what it even meant? Some time ago, I thought the consensus of eight editors in a discussion based on guidelines was enough to make wide changes, and I left it open for well over a week (possibly more, maybe a month, my memory fails me), and I was very strongly corrected on that by both a number of editors and administrators, with permissions taken away as a result. --  Alex TW 09:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any policies, guidelines or information pages supporting your objections, so it's hard for me to explain to you why you are wrong. As i said earlier, if you disagree with the closure, the established practice is to challenge it at the administrator's noticeboard. I can't deal with WP:JDL arguements. - Radiphus  09:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we'll wait for other editors to contribute with more supporting guidelines and policies, and their thoughts on what has happened. It's why I posted this discussion here rather than a noticeboard, after all. --  Alex TW 09:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the top of this page, you will see that WP:VPP is for discussing proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. It's not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. You may proceed as you see fit. - Radiphus  09:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While three editors is a bit light for my taste for making major changes to featured material, there isn't really an official number required for these decisions. Technically, the procedures were followed, and on any other article, nobody would bat an eye at how that discussion was executed. Do you have any objections to the actual changes, or just the discussion? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 15:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Oversight question
This edit points out this page. But on that page there is nothing that says how to proceed. How is this done? Michael Hardy (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Click the email link at the top of that page and ask for it. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More information on how to request oversight can be found at Requests for oversight. Mz7 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource for archives
I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this. I have raised some concerns at Talk:Jehovah. It seems that any user could go edit the Wikisource archive. This may open the possibility to circular issues (summarizing user-altered content) or simply point at an inaccurate archive if it was altered. An interesting thing that I noticed however is that archives link appear to have been preserved at another article where another editor also introduces a Wikisource template: vs. However, while appears to work fine,  doesn't.  If there's an ongoing effort to archive using Wikisource, likely that there's a proper venue to make sure that these concerns are addressed? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Candidates in Infoboxes on upcoming election articles
After debates at Talk:Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018 and Talk:Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018 regarding what candidates should be included in the infobox, there is now going to be a similar discussion at Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2018.

The rough consensus seems to be to include candidates that get 5% or more in multiple polls. However, supporters of candidates who get less than that are generally unhappy with that decision, and I know of no site-wide consensus on this topic. I wish to find one. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums was somewhat inconclusive. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I unarchived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and requested closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I commented in the Illinois RfC that 5% standard is highly troubling for me as calculating a polling average is not a simple averaging especially in races without regular polling. This approach would mean we'd be doing OR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's no way to establish a satisfactory poll methodology without way overstepping the bounds of original research and neutrality. It could be that the best (and easiest to implement) solution might just be to not include the candidates in the infobox until after the election?Rosguill (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In US elections, at least at the federal level, 5% is a point where if a third-party candidate gets that many votes, they get federal funding in the subsequent election. While that rule doesn't apply at state or other local levels, it is a reasonable bound for a cutoff when there's more than 2 or 3 running candidates. (With common sense limits, such as if the vote ends up being 50/45.1/4.9, I'd include the 4.9 even though that's under 5). --M asem  (t) 03:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus last year at the WikiProject on how to handle this *after* the election. The question is what to do before the election.  There's something to be said to avoid the problem by not having an infobox at all before the election. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, here, there's only 3 candidates, and the third-party is confirmed to be on the ballot. It would be different if there were 4 or more, but with only 3, and with significant coverage and endorsements, why not to include. Again, common sense here. --M asem (t) 03:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Like in the Illinois gubernatorial race mentioned above where there are four people on the ballot? I have no issues with the 5% rule after an election but it does seem murkier beforehand. Personally I don't have a problem with listing all people on the ballot in that case. Especially because we don't allow articles for most candidates presence in an info box doesn't seem so bad. But I think no info box or only those with significant RS coverage are both better policies than Wikipedians attempting to be Nate Silver and calculating poll averages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with basing it on ballot access is that ballot access is itself political, and can in some cases be controversial. While that doesn't appear to be the case in the current examples, it could be in future elections, and assessing for each election whether or not ballot access is sufficiently controversial is original research.Rosguill (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand better than most the politics behind ballot access but at any given moment someone is either on the ballot or off. If RS report they're on the ballot they're on. If signatures are challenged and a candidate is removed RS will report it. I am curious what you see as the scenario where RS divide on the question of whether someone is on or off the ballot? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this: as long as there's a RS showing they will be on the ballot, we should list them. It's the simplest possible criteria and least subject to bias. Their campaigns need not be covered extensively by the media. There's no reason why we should be limiting the amount of information during the campaign. SportingFlyer  talk  06:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My phrasing was poor. I didn't mean that their status as being on or off ballot would be controversial, but rather that a candidate can still be significant without being on the ballot. Write-in candidates can and have won elections, even as high as the Senate. Thus, to preserve neutrality we should present candidates equally independent of their status of being on or off the ballot.Rosguill (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In considering this, I think the solution before the election is either to eliminate the infobox, or use a reduced content infobox that only lists the affirmed candidates on the ballot and their political party, but does not include photographs, etc. This should be a temporary state, when the election is over, then the proper rules of determining who to include can be followed. While realistically we know most US elections have two, and sometimes three, leading candidates, we should not try to show preference in the short-form data field that is the infobox. Leading candidates prior to an election can be identified in the body, and subsequently discussed as leading candidates in the lede, but the infobox doesn't have the space to explain this differentiating factor, so it should list all verified ballot candidates. Again, that's only due to it being a placeholder until the election is actually ran. --M asem  (t) 06:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Easy fix? Any candidate confirmed to be on the ballot in reliable sources can be added to the infobox, and any candidate whose write-in campaign passes WP:GNG can be added to the infobox. SportingFlyer  talk  06:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've always said that I think every candidate on the ballot should be in an infobox prior to it taking place, otherwise it's an NPOV issue. A fair number of people will come to Wikipedia for information on elections and if they see only two or three candidates listed, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that those ones do the best. Number   5  7  12:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous two people. Include everyone on the ballot for statewide races, and extremely notable write-in candidates. After the fact, maybe change the infobox to reflect major players.74.110.185.157 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, all candidates confirmed for ballot access in any political race should be included on the article for that race, equally, regardless of polling, perception, or assumptions. Significant write-ins should also be included. Anything less would be bias, reduce integrity of Wikipedia, and weaken Wikipedia's reputation. There is a process to get certified to appear on a ballot, and once that has been completed, why take steps to exclude candidates here? Schultzjm1 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the infobox should list all the candidates that make the general election (November) ballot for every State except those States like Louisiana where the rules specify a runoff election if no candidate reaches 50%. We violate WP:NPOV if the lede and infobox does not include third party candidates. Before the primary, the infobox should only contain the incumbent. We should also note in top-two states, two candidates from the same party might be on the general election ballot. --Enos733 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have closed the RFC referred to above following a request for a formal close at AN. Since participation there was limited, and the question asked was very specific, all that RFC allows us to conclude is that there is consensus for allowing third-party candidates in infoboxes for US elections. The threshold for this inclusion, and how to treat elections outside the US, need further discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be no closer to a consensus here. My sense is that there's a very weak preference towards including all candidates over the other feasible option of including all candidates which have received 5% in a poll (or are considered "major" candidates in a race without polling. Including "candidates with Wikipedia articles" is an unworkable criteria for a variety of reasons, primarily because coverage of candidates purely in the context of a current political campaign is generally not considered sufficient for meeting WP:GNG.  New York gubernatorial election, 2018 is another page with a similar dispute. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018, I suggested that a candidate who recieves dedicated coverage in reliable sources for a given election should be listed in the infobox. This seems to me consistent with Wikipedia's general goals and content policies. --Eliyak T · C 18:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A policy for interface administrators is being worked on
(I'm not a regular at the policy village pump or any other policy page, so I don't know, but it seems to me that a policy proposal should be mentioned on this page, even if it's currently visible via the Centralized discussion list.) --Pipetricker (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators
 * I, awaiting a new formal RFC. --Pipetricker (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And there is now another RfC there, readded to WP:Cent by User:Mz7. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Using Migrating
I think using migration is much better then the current WP:SPLIT and (then) WP:MERGE, using split then merge creates confusion as you're not really doing a proper split or merge, as the page you're moving content to already exist and the page you're moving content from doesn't get deleted. As such the guidelines don't fully describe this process making it confusing for users who are new to this kind of stuff. Also, it's just more convenient, and simpler to look at one guideline that explain the whole process vs 2 that don't explain the process properly. Currently the templates used for this process have totally random names some relating to splitting some relating to merging and some don't even properly explain the procedure and they are made for different processes on Wikipedia. Comment: If you don't like the name migrate and maybe content move would be better? – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  12:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: We could even rename it Split and merge but that seams confusion and it implies that page talks about two process vs the one hybrid process. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Brandon, I definitely agree there is a need for more consistent templates, better template documentation, and information page coverage of the "split and merge" hybrid. I think a separate information page, like you propose, is a real possibility, and I would even see the potential need for a brief information page covering splitting, merging, and their intersection so that editors have somewhere to land first and navigate to the right information page. I'm definitely not sold on the name "migrating" for several reasons. Firstly, editors are already very familiar with splitting and merging. Secondly, the process and guidelines for each of splitting and merging are the basis of their hybrid, and using the same names reinforces that. Thirdly, a word like "migrate" seems to me to emphasize the technical part of the process, the act of taking the content from one article to the other, when it is actually the editorial parts, the splitting and merging, that deserve the most emphasis. Right now I'd be leaning towards just keeping "splitting and merging", but maybe we can come up with a cute WP:Shortcut type abbreviation? "Splerge"? Anyway, I think the best place for this discussion is at the talk page of your proposed information page (for what I have a bunch of suggestions!). Let's make a comprehensive outline of the effected templates, get a solid draft of the information page with input from other editors, and then look at which if any process we need for formal consensus depending on the scope upon which we settle. What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can continue the discussion at the talk page. (Wikipedia talk:Migrating). – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  15:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it time to close WP:RFM?
I had cause to write a bit about Wikipedia dispute resolution processes this afternoon and came to Requests for mediation. On autopilot, I started to summarize its role/policy, and wrote that it doesn't see much use these days. Curious, I went to see just how active it is. I haven't seen any request for mediation linked in an awful long time, but maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.

It looks like there have been two requests for mediation accepted in the past two years, and it's unclear to me how successful they were: Requests for mediation/FXCM and Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians.

Practically speaking, does RFM still play an active role in the dispute resolution process? My sense is no, in which case it may be time to talk about marking it as historical and updating our policy pages. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, this is not a proposal but a discussion that may or may not lead to a proposal. I wouldn't want to propose such a thing with my limited experience with the process, and a proposal would really take a formal RfC likely posted to centralized discussion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 20:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It certainly needs reform: more activity and less bureaucracy. It's arguable that WP:DRN has replaced its functionality at this point. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like the main thing that happens there is that 2-3 cases a month are rejected, and almost nothing is ever accepted. They took two cases last year, one failed and the other was deemed “partly succesful” because half of the dispute turned out to be socks who were all blocked via a seperate investigation. That doesn’t sound like a functioning process. I say mark it historical, switch off the bot maintaining it,  and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Assuming this would also be a call for retiring the Mediation Committee? Ping to MedCom chair . —  xaosflux  Talk 21:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason to close it. If it's not the most useful thing useful this minute, it does not mean it can't ever be useful (Wikipedia has a looong time horizon). (The main issue of use is all parties agreeing to formal process.)  We should also revive the looser Mediation Cabal mainly to get people who will participate in constructing well researched, neutral RfC's on complicated issues to have a good forum to do so with a mediator. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The WP:MEDCOM page lists 8 mediators, 6 of whom are nominally active. Of those,
 * TransporterMan is an active editor, and regularly contributes at WP:DRN, WP:3O, MedCom (during its infrequent cases), and related venues. TransporterMan was appointed Chair of MedCom from September 2014 to February 2018.  No current chair is listed, though TM still signs as Chair when responding to MedCom requests.
 * Sunray last edited yesterday, but edits intermittently and relatively infrequently. (He has roughly 30 total edits in 2018, mostly in January and February, seven since the beginning of July.)
 * Mdann52 has not edited since June.
 * The Wordsmith has not edited since March.
 * Guanaco's last edit was two weeks ago, though it looks typical for his editing history to have weeks- or month-long gaps.
 * Andrevan has been blocked for sockpuppetry (?)(!) since mid-July.
 * WGFinley has not edited for a month, and is listed as "Not actively mediating".
 * Keilana has not edited since July, and has made only 5 edits since April. (She, at least, is listed as "Active, but temporarily away".)
 * For practical purposes, WP:MEDCOM looks like it's just WP:Ask TransporterMan these days. I don't say that with any intent to deride TM's competence or contributions; he's done a superb job wrangling some challenging issues (and editors). But if it's just a one-TransporterMan show, it might be time to turn out the lights.
 * As well, I count 23 rejected case submissions so far in 2018, and no acceptances. All were rejected (by TransporterMan; at a glance I didn't note the involvement of any other mediators) for the expected reasons: insufficient attempts to resolve the dispute, referral to more appropriate venues, and/or parties declined to participate. It may be a bad practice for us to retain links to a project and encourage editors to fill out case applications at a venue that almost universally isn't going to be able to help them resolve their disputes.  WP:DRN, for instance, already includes referrals to alternate venues as an explicit part of its top-of-page mandate; there's no need to duplicate that function at WP:MEDCOM.
 * TLDR: WP:MEDCOM is effectively a one-man operation, whose near-exclusive role is as a referral service to direct complainants to other, more-appropriate dispute resolution venues and processes. We could replace the page with a redirect to WP:DRN and streamline things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed Andrevan, whatever happens here, he is obviously no longer a “trusted user” who we would want mediating disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First, sorry for the delayed reply; I'm traveling and only have limited online time for the next couple of days. The relative inactivity of the current mediators is less problematic when one realizes that once one is a member of the committee that one remains a member and may remain subscribed to the committee's mailing list. Calls for mediators for particular cases go out on that list, so it is possible for a inactive member to take the case. Were we to get a number of cases which fail due to no mediator being available to take them, then I might poll the inactive member list for someone to take the case (and might do that anyway if needed). I was going to note the differences between MEDCOM and DRN, but this exchange between Rhododendrites and Robert McClenon on my user talk page sets it out well and Robert says everything I was going to say (thank you, Robert):


 * Where Robert refers to "RFC" above, I'm assuming that those are typos and "RFM" is meant...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:TenOfAllTrades - No. By RFC I mean Request for Comments.  By RFM I mean Request for Mediation.  I mean that a Request for Comments is the usual way to ascertain consensus.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. I had figured that you were drawing the distinction between the binding versus non-binding nature of RFM versus DRN outcomes. (I suppose the distinction between RFM and RfC is that nominally an RfC's outcome is binding on the content, whereas the RFM is binding on the editors....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. Formal mediation is binding only on the editors, and only if they agree to it.  An RFC is binding on the content, even on those editors who were in the minority.  Since RFC is not voluntary, it is often the best form of dispute resolution when it is content that is in dispute (or when both content and conduct are issues and the misconduct is dealt with).  After an RFC, editing against the RFC is disruptive editing, up to the point where a valid argument can be made that consensus can change.  I did mean RFC, which does not require the participation of the tendentious editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As Robert says, MEDCOM does still fulfill a niche that DRN does not, and should not, fill. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've read all the arguments and I would lean towards deprecating it. It's specifically a content resolution process and most content disputes are cleared up amicably when there is no incivility or duplicity. It reminds me of how we deprecated RFC-U some years go for behavioural issues. Nobody misses it and that kind of thing is handled, for better or worse, at ANI. I think DRN is just as capable without the bureacracy of MEDCOM, after all, ANI does not have a committee but has to accord severe sanctions on a community debated process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As another alternative, if the community agrees that the specific features unique to RFM (binding resolutions, privileged discussions) remain necessary and desirable, would it make more sense to subsume RFM into DRN? It's pretty apparent that regular editors have no idea when RFM might be an appropriate or useful venue to handle their disputes. Virtually all RFM requests are rejected (including every single one this year) shortly after filing. Instead of continuing to allow almost-always-futile direct applications to RFM, could we make referral to RFM or an RFM-like framework an option at DRN? One more thing&mdash;as I noted above, there's really only one active editor left on MedCom.  What happens to a hypothetical mediation-in-progress if he unexpectedly becomes unavailable?  Suppose a group of editors have participated in mediation in good faith for a month, and TransporterMan develops a sudden allergy to Wikipedia (there's something in Jimbo's beard dander, say). Right now, it would seem they are left in the lurch.  Is it appropriate for us to continue offering a process  – either by direct application or by referral – that seems to be precarious and vulnerable to a single point of failure?  (DRN, in contrast, seems to have multiple active volunteers.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one person isn’t a project. And a project that hasn’t had a case accepted in over a year just isn’t really helping. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the other DRN volunteers or for MEDCOM, but I personally think that two things need to be done. First, we need to make an active effort to get more volunteer mediators.  Second, I think that it would be in order to use DRN as a gateway to formal mediation, once there are more mediators.  DRN volunteers, although less experienced than the disappearing MEDCOM mediators, should know what is a good case for MEDCOM, namely, a complicated content dispute without too too much misconduct, where the editors can explain what they want.  I can see an argument that a case normally should not go directly to MEDCOM without trying something lighter in weight.  (Most MEDCOM filings are rejected. Most DRN filings are rejected.  Too many disputes either are conduct disputes, or are premature due to failure to discuss, or are due to cluelessness.  User:TransporterMan?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with what Robert has said. While we're at a low ebb at the moment, one important thing that DRN does not supply (and should not be required to supply) is mediators experienced in dispute resolution. While we generally discourage brand new Wikipedians from mediating at DRN, we welcome experienced Wikipedians as DRN mediators even if they're not experienced in dispute resolution. DRN volunteers are expected to know Wikipedia; MEDCOM members are supposed to also know dispute resolution. Granted that it looks like we may need to do some recruiting at MEDCOM (one member has contacted me through the MEDCOM mailing list since this discussion began to confirm that they're still available), but as I said previously, there's a considerable pool of prior members to call upon if we have a run of cases. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC) PS: A second member has now also confirmed their availability. -  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm more active on Commons these days, but I am usually available to take on a mediation case. TransporterMan usually handles the WP:RFM process, but if he disappears I or another could take the chair role. I do think the concern about our lack of cases is valid. Most disputes are resolved through informal talk page or noticeboard discussion, or one party gives up at some point. Cases involving clear, one-sided conduct problems are settled by community or admin sanctions. The rest are complex, long-term issues, and few people can remain immaculate after months in Wikipedia's trenches. Those go to arbitration. This doesn't leave much for the mediation committee.

Still, I have no doubt there are several cases each year which could benefit from mediation. They parties give up (on the issue, or on Wikipedia), or the case escalates to arbitration. Could we do better in identifying these cases and inviting them to WP:RFM? How? —Guanaco 02:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Old timer DR guy here (hello all!). When I looked at MedCom way back in 2012, it seemed reasonably active back then, but MedCab and MedCom largely served a similar purpose. MedCab was marked historical, and DRN was founded with the idea of creating a lightweight process for resolving disputes. Apart from MedCom having some more seasoned mediators in their ranks, a key difference that other content DR forums don't have is that proceedings in MedCom are privileged - the conversations within can't be used in other DR forums (such as ArbCom) and this helps enable free conversation. This doesn't exist anywhere else, and while I do also see that MedCom is very inactive, this element should be considered prior to closure of MedCom. Steven   Crossin  06:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It is useful sometimes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion. I agree with Anthony: Formal mediation is useful sometimes. Steve Crossin summarizes its purpose well. It is true that MedCom isn't used as much now as it was in the "early days." I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that it isn't needed, though. I think it is great that Wikipedia has several options for both conduct and content disputes. As outlined on the Dispute resolution requests project page, options for content disputes now include:
 * Third opinion (WP:3O)
 * Specialized Noticeboards
 * Requests for comment (WP:RFC)
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN), and
 * Formal mediation (WP:MC)


 * It wasn't always thus. When I joined MedCom there was no WP:DRN and other dispute resolution options were not clearly spelled out for editors. The options for content disputes were MedCab or MedCom. Also, frankly, there were many, many serious disputes—between groups of editors of different religions, cultures and theoretical perspectives. As WP grew, most of the pages in serious dispute over content were settled. WP also became better at sorting content from conduct disputes. Editors learned that great articles contain information from a variety of perspectives.


 * So does this mean that we don't need formal mediation any more? I think that having the resort to formal mediation helps us sort disputes between editors; it is a backstop. And, when things get really nasty, formal mediation can provide a safe place for editors to cool down and learn to collaborate about a topic they all have a common interest in.


 * Regarding my participation: As User:TransporterMan has said, many of those listed as mediators have been less active on WP in recent times, but we are still connected. For my part, I have been terrifically busy in real life during the past six years. But we are all on a listserve and when a request comes in, we discuss who best to take it. Finally, I would say that, though there have been many MedCom chairs over the years (I did a stint), in the last few years TransporterMan has held it together through thick and thin. Vive MedCom! We are lucky to have it. Sunray (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have mediated disputes a few times on or off RFM, including putting up with long acrimonious discussions between other people on my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A Few Comments on MEDCOM and Mediation
There are two basic problems with MEDCOM which partially offset each other. I would like to try to address them separately. The first problem is that too few cases that are appropriate for formal mediation are being filed with MEDCOM. The second problem, which is almost hidden by the first, is that there are not enough mediators. I will comment that both of these problems are more general problems in Wikipedia that are not limited to formal mediation.

Too few proper cases are being filed with MEDCOM. In 2018, 23 cases were filed, and 23 cases were declined by the MEDCOM. (A total of 276 cases were declined by the MEDCOM since 2013.) Most of them were declined because of one or more of inadequate discussion on the article talk page, failure to use lower-level dispute resolution mechanisms, failure of one or more parties to agree to mediation, or improper filing (not listing the other parties). There aren’t very many disputes, even in a period of a few years, for which formal mediation is appropriate. I will also comment that most of the cases that are filed with the dispute resolution noticeboard are declined, either for inadequate discussion on the article talk page, lack of agreement to informal mediation, or improper filing. There are a relatively large number of disputes that are procedurally declined. Either there are not very many disputes for which formal or informal mediation is appropriate, or there are a number of such disputes that are not being sent to dispute resolution. My own guess is that one primary reason is that there are relatively few “pure content” disputes, because most content disputes also involve conduct issues by one or more parties. Often, such disputes are resolved after the warrior is sanctioned.

I will again suggest that perhaps DRN should serve as a gateway to formal mediation.

There are not enough formal mediators. There are also not enough volunteers at DRN who are actually willing to mediate cases, as opposed to providing help in other ways. We, the community, need to publicize the need for mediators, especially with some sort of outside training in dispute resolution.

I will comment that, about two or three years ago, Jimmy Wales suggested that the WMF hire some professional mediators to provide services to the various Wikipedia communities for dispute resolution. I don’t know whether that offer was meant seriously, or was just meant to divert attention from either the WMF’s excess money or the WMF’s inability and lack of interest in what actually goes on in the English Wikipedia. I have very mixed feelings, because I am not sure whether those mediators, being paid professionals, would give proper respect to the volunteers who are the English Wikipedia, or whether they would try to impose their own ideas.

We need both more mediators with experience in dispute resolution and volunteers to assist in informal dispute resolution. Perhaps we also need to provide more awareness of existing resources for dispute resolution, but perhaps we only have a few “pure content” disputes that are amenable to mediation.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I had suggested professional mediation previously, to ensure there are people dedicated to smoothing out issues at all times (it's a large imposition on volunteers to expect them to constantly get involved in energy-draining debates). As hired employees, they would have a demonstrable track record, which could be evaluated by the community. If they aren't getting appropriate results, then replacements can be sought. isaacl (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Good analysis Robert McClenon, I wouldn't call the issues you raise "problems" but rather concerns, which MedCom members share. We are always on the lookout for mediators. I don't see the need to hire "professional" (outside) mediators, but maybe Jimbo sees something we don't. As to professionalism, some of us are mediators in real life. MedCom members have a variety of skills and experience we can draw from. We like to think that we have an effective, though under utilized, team. Bottom line: If WP hires paid mediators, they will find work for themselves. So let's look real hard at whether there is a need. Sunray (talk)
 * I fully appreciate that there are real-life mediators on the mediation committee; the question is not a matter of quality but ensuring that the mediators' full-time priority is resolving Wikipedia disputes. Regarding finding work, I'm not very concerned: the community can find plenty of work for them. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern about professional mediators is that, if they were employed by the WMF (which is who they would be employed by), they might ignore those policies and guidelines of the community that are not established by the WMF. (Most of the policies and guidelines of the community, such as notability, are those of the community.  A few, such as BLP, are those of the WMF.)  It would be important that they understand that they are servants of the community and not its appointed leaders (as much as the community fails to lead itself).  For instance, I would not want any professional mediators to select the disputes (whether from ANI, DRN, RFM, etc.) that they thought needed mediation, when some of them can be handled by the community (including by being closed by the community).  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The key would be for the community to work collaboratively on setting the conditions under which a mediator could be used, how one is selected, and how their performance is reviewed, and to get it written into the job description. (Sure, there's always the risk that the WMF would then choose to ignore this, but not much can be done about that.) Professional mediators are specifically trained to look at disputes even-handedly, regardless of whose paying them; they know their employment is dependent on their neutrality. Personally I see mediators as a resource to be called in, not a group of people who are selecting disputes to be involved in. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * isaacl, I couldn't agree more that mediators are a resource to be called on. You correctly point out that MedCom is selecting disputes to be involved in. I doubt that you are advocating that there be no guidelines as to what is mediatable. For example there is a groundrule that individuals only file requests for formal mediation after there have been real attempts to resolve disputes through discussion on the talk page or via other means. There are other basic requirements to ensure that an issue is mediatable. Surely that is important no matter who is mediating. Sunray (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't being clear; when I was referring to professional mediators, I did not mean someone fulfilling the mediator role as part of the mediation committee. I was thinking more of a moderator role that could be called in to help manage conversations between disagreeing parties. This could encompass RfCs, for example. But specifically regarding Robert McClenon's concern, if the consensus ever did shift on English Wikipedia to accept professionals, the community would be able to clearly define the ground rules. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a case for paying for formal mediation when we already have that capability using experienced volunteer WP editors. As I've said above, mediation is just one of a suite of dispute resolution methods. which are geared to handling various kinds of disputes. Could we improve our services? No doubt, but let's do some analysis first. It may not be broke. Sunray (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not really talking about formal mediation as currently defined, but dedicated moderator support. Having a paid person fill this role removes the delays that add up with volunteer assistance, versus someone dedicated to responding rapidly. It would also help provide an outsider's view without any attachment to a specific side. For example, RfCs often bog down right at the start as the supporters of various viewpoints disagree on how to word the question. Having a outsider guide and shepherd contentious RfCs would help them run more smoothly. isaacl (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I read you right, you are saying that you don't think that this kind of moderation is happening at present. You give the example of RFCs. Let's say I agree that RFCs often bog down. What is it about paying someone to moderate that would give WP an advantage over organizing a group of (volunteer) editors to do this? Sunray (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Further, how does this relate to the topic of this discussion? Sunray (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on what topic you'd like to discuss. If you want to just discuss formal mediation as currently performed by the mediation committee, then we don't have to continue to explore this particular suggestion. isaacl (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on result field of battleboxes
There is currently an RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4 if anyone wants to comment. EtherealGate (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on skipping levels in multi-level user warning templates
Multi-level user warning templates are used to add boilerplate text on user talk pages to warn of vandalism or other issues; they typically come in four or more increasingly sternly-worded, versions (e.g., uw-vandalism1, 2, 3, 4, im). Your feedback on whether it is appropriate to skip levels is welcome at WT:UW. Thank you, Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on blocked editors and their talk pages
There is currently an RfC on whether or not blocked users can edit their talk page for anything other than block appeals. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Thanks. Nihlus 16:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice to Wikipedians to contribute images of the National Museum of Brazil?
Hi, guys! I noticed that the Portuguese Wikipedia has a notice asking for contributors to send and upload any items from the National Museum of Brazil, which was destroyed in the 2018 fire, to the Wikimedia Commons. The original notice in Portuguese is here, and I wrote an English version of the message.

I think it would be a good idea to display this notice on ENwiki too, linking to the English translation. Some people visiting the museum were foreigners, and they might also have some key images. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This should probably be under 'Proposals' as its not a policy based issue. But a good idea anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Areas of Cyprus Republic (de jure)/Areas of Northern Cyprus (de facto)
Hello. First of all I want to say that I am a Greek Cypriots. But I believe that I have Neutral point of view. Sorry about using words like "occupied", "free" etc. It's easier to explain that way.

Some areas in the island of Cyprus are belong to Republic of Cyprus De jure and also are belong to Northern Cyprus De facto.

There is no problem having articles for the villages and municipalities of Northern Cyprus. We can do the same as any other village or municipality in the planet. They claim that they are a country (even though not recognized), they have their own administrative territorial entity.

For districts we already have separated articles. (Please see Districts of Cyprus and Districts of Northern Cyprus.

There are six districts in Republic of Cyprus. Of them:

The parts of that districts that is in north Cyprus, are consisting Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is divided to 5 districts.
 * Kyrenia District, is all in Northern Cyprus
 * Famagusta District, is almost all in Northern Cyprus (10% is control by Republic of Cyprus)
 * Nicosia District, a part is in Northern Cyprus

As you can see, these districts do not identify with the "occupied" districts of Cyprus, perhaps with the sole exception of the province of Kyrenia (Girne), without being absolutely sure ... We have a separate articles for each district of Republic of Cyprus and for every district of Northern Cyprus.
 * Lefkoşa District
 * Gazimağusa District
 * Girne District
 * Güzelyurt District
 * İskele District

At this point, I would like to mention that Republic of Cyprus, although it does not control these areas, continues to have administrations for them. For example, District Administration of Kyrenia. For districts, I have identified only one problem: population. In Girne District we can write the population as recorded by Northern Cyprus. In Kyrenia District we cannot write the population according to Republic of Cyprus because the census cannot apply to "occupied" areas. And we cannot write the population recorded by Northern Cyprus because the two districts are not the same. Especially in other districts there is certainly no match. For example, in Famagusta District, Republic of Cyprus recorded only the "free" areas. For 2011 census that population was 46629. The population of that district (the way Republic of Cyprus defined it) include people that lives it the area of the district under control of Northern Cyprus. But they don’t count them. And we cannot easily counted them because the "relative" Gazimağusa District has not the same area as Famagusta District.

The main problem is about municipalities and communities (villages). Republic of Cyprus elects mayors, municipal councils, community councils for all "occupied" municipalities, has Geographical codes of the Republic of Cyprus for all of these areas, etc. With always the footnote that concern areas belonging to Republic of Cyprus but not are controlled by Republic of Cyprus because of the presence of the Turkish army. Of course, Northern Cyprus also elects mayors, has their own codes etc.

Problems:

And more other problems like:
 * Kyrenia: Who is the mayor? The Greek Cypriot or the Turkish Cypriot? The article of Kyrenia (and for Famagusta) has both mayor with de jure and de facto in brackets or with Mayor-in-exile.
 * That what Republic of Cyprus define as Keryneia Municipality, the area that the mayor has the has the administrative responsibility, is not identical for Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. That is, the Greek Cypriot mayor is the mayor of a particular territory, but the Turkish Cypriot mayor is the mayor of a larger or smaller territory. We both call them Kyrenia/Girne! But they are not the same.
 * Keryneia municipality has Statistical Service of Cyprus Geocode 2000. That is how Republic of Cyprus code that areas. But Northern Cyprus have also their own code. Which one must be it the article?
 * area: Keryneia Municipality, as defined by Republic of Cyprus, has different area that Keryneia/Girne Municipality, as defined by Northern Cyprus.
 * Quarters: Keryneia Municipality, according to Republic of Cyprus, is divided (administrative territorial entity) to quarters that are different from quarters that Keryneia/Girne Municipality is divided according to Northern Cyprus.
 * population: Same problems as districts.
 * Status: For example, Trikomo for Republic of Cyprus is a village, for Northern Cyprus is a town/municipality. And it is the capital of a district. Moreover, Dikomo is a municipality in Northern Cyprus, but for Republic of Cyprus are two separated villages, Kato Dikomo and Pano Dikomo etc
 * coat of arms image: Keryneia municipality has different coat of arms that Keryneia/Girne Municipality.
 * Websites: Famagusta Municipality for Greek Cypriot and Famagusta Municipalities from Turkish Cypriots . (English Wikipedia article gives both).
 * Even time is different the half of the year. Northern Cyprus is not using daylight saving time.


 * located in the administrative territorial entity: According to Republic of Cyprus, Arsos, Larnaca located in the administrative territorial entity Larnaca District. According to Northern Cyprus, Arsos, Larnaca located in the administrative territorial entity Gazimağusa District.

I am not sure about any solution. The only I have though:


 * Kyrenia: article only about the city. Not informations about municipalities. That way there is no problem, because city history continues regardless of who are living to the city and who are managing. The city has no statutory (legal basis) limits, area, emblem, website, quarters. The municipalities have. The municipalities do not identify with the city, as Limassol is no longer identified with Limassol Municipality. The only problems here are that it is necessary to clarify in which district the city is located (different for Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus). Perhaps there are others problems that I did not think.
 * Keryneia municipality: article about Keryneia municipality from its foundation at 1878 as today. It will be the article for the municipality that continues to exist as an entity but with the administration and the residents outside the municipality (considering that for Republic of Cyprus refugees from Kyrenia and their descendants have electoral rights in that municipality. They are considered voters of the municipality and citizens of the municipality in general, according to Republic of Cyprus).
 * Girne Municipality: an article for the municipality that undertook the administration of the area in 1974 and which in 1983 became the municipality of the newly established Northern Cyprus). It will essentially be the article for the municipality with a year of foundation in 1974.

For communities, we can have two articles for each community. Like:
 * Trikomo, Cyprus, for the village according to Republic of Cyprus
 * Yeni İskele, for the town according to Northern Cyprus

It that useful? Again, however, it is not certain that each village is terribly identified as Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus mean it, even though they have the same name (translated between to Greek and Turkish).

And the problem is even more complicated for semi-"occupied" municipalities with population in both Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. An example is Nicosia Municipality (according to Republic of Cyprus). Part of it is in Northern Cyprus. Of course, we have article about North Nicosia.

I have asked the same to wikidata. d:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/08. The solution they propose was to have 2 item for each village (Is easiest in Wikidata :). Like Gangwon Province (historical), Kangwon Province (North Korea), Gangwon Province, South Korea, Hwanghae Province (Republic of Korea), North Hwanghae Province, South Hwanghae Province, Hwanghae Province, Taiwan Province, Taiwan, Fujian Province, Republic of China, Fujian, Lianjiang County, Lianjiang County. I already have applied that. The explanations was that ''there are two distinct and separate structures in place. A Greek and a Turkish structure with only overlap where the structures indicate physical objects like human settlements are in both and create two artocles for not for the settlements but for all the "administrative and territorial units", they are "per country"''.

Of course, you may believe that we must not change anything. (Sorry about my Enlgish). Xaris333 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Creation of article on Maria Elvira Salazar
I am stumped about something and am hoping someone can help me out. We have an article on a woman named Maria Elvira Salazar that was apparently created on 25 April 2017 with this edit but a user named Lcast043. What I don't get is how this editor was able to create the article: the creation of this article was and remains his/ her only WP edit to date, but it doesn't look like the article went through AfC or any other review process. The editor certainly didn't have 10 edits and 4 days of editing history— shouldn't that have made it impossible for him/ her to create a new article like this? I am missing something, but I don't understand what. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know. Will check back here regularly for responses. Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Prior to 2018, editors could create articles without being autoconfirmed. They can still do so as drafts, and then the articles can be moved to mainspace by other editors. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Please see Autoconfirmed article creation trial, commonly abbreviated ACTRIAL. This restriction on direct article creation by brand new editors went into effect on a trial basis in September, 2017. It is now permanent. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with articles meeting SNGs but not GNG?
This RfC is a followup to a June 2017 RfC clarifying the relation between SNGs and the GNG. Consensus was established that SNGs do not supersede GNG, but there was no consensus as to what to do about the articles not apparently meeting GNG. A pre-RfC discussion has show two major issues: What the final result should be, and what to do in the interim to avoid flooding AfD and related venues, which will be discussed as a follow up. The main options are keep, tag, merge, transwiki or delete.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposals

 * Flawed question that RfC changed nothing in WP:N, which makes it clear the SNGs are 100% equivalent to the GNG: the close was perhaps the worst RfC close I have ever read and is an example of closers trying to tell a narrative rather than actually answer the question the RfC at the time posed, which was re: WP:NSPORTS, an SNG that already subordinates itself to the GNG. As the RfC itself was not advertised as a major change to the notability guideline, nothing in the notability guideline itself changed: it just reinforced the status quo on one specific guideline. This RfC is not needed, as WP:N already covers it: SNGs == the GNG and GNG != N, SNG !=N, but instead both create a rebuttable presumption of notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't follow what's going on here. That RfC applied to NSPORT, but the conclusion in question shouldn't be controversial. The GNG is just an application of the idea of notability, to ensure that we only cover subjects that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. If a subject does not have coverage, we should not have an article on it. If an SNG purports to trump the GNG and allows for articles on subjects that do not have significant coverage in reliable sources, it should not have guideline status. Or we could just kick out the either/or language in WP:N and clarify that SNGs are conditions under which something can typically be presumed to be notable in the sense of having received significant coverage in reliable sources, but that it ultimately comes down to that coverage. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The contention is around the (optimistically) 1% of articles that meet SNG for which GNG cannot be demonstrated. At what point do we delete the article for not meeting GNG, versus maintaining that SNG is met and sufficient coverage—though unidentified—does exist.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But the GNG also only requires that sources exist, so in this example those articles are still expected to meet the GNG -- it's just they can only demonstrate one. Which is problematic, because when something is challenged the burden is on those who want to include material to show coverage. Winning a particular award may be a good indication of notability sufficient to create an article before checking for additional sources, but if those additional sources cannot be found sufficient to question whether they exist, someone else would be justified in nominating it for deletion. If we have an article that does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, we have an article that's either a permastub or based on unreliable sources. To be clear, I'm reframing more than disagreeing with what you're saying. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I second on flawed question That 2017 RfC was related to Articles_for_deletion/Magdalena_Zamolska, an AfD closed as "delete" that featured roughly as many "fails GNG" !votes as "pass SNG". All things being equal, an SNG does not eclipse GNG; in fact, many SNGs have verbiage saying they were written so that GNG is likely met. However, it would be a failure to assess consensus to have a few "fail GNG" !votes overriding a strong sentiment that it "meets SNG". It's up to the !voters to exercise judgement on when an SNG is sufficient (or not). The usual outcome is that domain "experts" are more likely to follow SNGs and believe that sources could eventually be found, while "outsiders" are more open to entertaining whether GNG is actually demonstratable now.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs Different Question - Thought I am strongly on the (modern) NSPORTS MUST meet GNG, I am having to agree that that close is not sufficiently clear. It's more a renumeration of near-unianimously agreed traits. Instead a formal proposal along the lines below should be made. I've narrowed to NSPORTS for now, as I've noted in the discussion I think most would agree existence is good for pre-modern (I roughly use 2000) articles, and a cross-SNGs risks excessive complication. NSPORTS is one of the bigger AfD GNG/SNG clash issues:
 * "Should (modern/new) articles meeting WP:NSPORTS requirements also be obliged to meet WP:GNG?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 10:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence of NSPORTS already states that the guideline "is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline" Implicitly, GNG should usually be met by meeting the SNG. Are you stating that articles on modern sports subjects should not be covered by NSPORTS? Or are you saying that some existing NSPORTS criteria need to be tightened to ensure that GNG is likely to be met?—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say it is more a case of “A demonstratable lack of source material (non-GNG) can sometimes out-weigh the presumption of notability (SNG)”. In other words... since SNG is based on the presumption that sources are LIKELY to exist, to out-weigh the SNG the nomination needs to make a convincing argument that the presumption is wrong... that (in the specific case) the expected sources DON’T actually exist.  Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * AfD is generally not thrilled if someone fails to make a case that GNG isn't met. Since in attempts of proving a negative you are somewhat forced to go off the person's assertion that nothing could be found. The only place where some difference might apply is when debating things like marginal Sig Cov cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The relationship between the sports-specific notability guidelines and the general notability guideline has been discussed many times and the consensus has been the same since their inception. Closers who fail to acknowledge that the guideline itself says that the general notability guideline must eventually be met and that only meeting the sport-specific guideline doesn't automatically mean an article should be kept are supervoting. The criteria for baseball, hockey, and association football (and I believe others) have been reviewed and revised over the years to improve their accuracy in predicting that the general notability guideline can be met. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the discussion that's been had. It's been clearly recognized that if an article meets NSPORTS, but someone does a proper search of sources (as outlined in BEFORE) and finds nothing more to expand on that topic, then the presumption of notability that the SNG grants has failed, and the article can be deleted. However, 90% of the time, at these AFDs, people have not shown a proper BEFORE search for sources to prove this satisfactory (as it generally requires local newspaper archive searches.). NSPORTS remains a presumption of notability with the expectation that more sourcing will come to expand the article. --M asem (t) 21:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what discussion you believe has not been had. As you know, I am aware of what you've said is clearly recognized; I just didn't describe it (people can go look at the FAQ for a precis of the consensus on the matter). Given that the 2017 RfC was really about WP:NSPORTS, I'm don't know if Nosebagbear's desire to narrow the question to WP:NSPORTS is really needed. What we need is for closers to respect the consensus that for sports-specific guidelines, meeting the SNG is not a free pass forever. isaacl (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Question is fine just needs clarification. It is not to re-define V, GNG, or SNG, but on the practical aspect of it -- what do we do with the (tons and tons) of sports bios that meet SNG but not GNG? Do we do nothing? Do we delete them? Renata (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The purpose of SNGs is to allow articles to exist that may not otherwise meet notability guidelines. Therefore, no action is needed. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 05:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * We do nothing. Coming from NFOOTBALL perspective - there is plenty of AFD consensus that an athlete technically meeting the SNG but failing GNG was not sufficient. What the SNG is intended to do is to give the article breathing room to meet GNG - it is an assumption of notability. How long that breathing room lasts before expiring is dependent on the subject of the article. GiantSnowman 08:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The GNG is little more than a mostly accurate predictor of whether the article will be deleted at AfD. The SNGs are largely forulated as predictors of whether the sourcing would meet the GNG.  The SNGs are mostly much easier to test, which makes them more useful for quick decisions, like whether you should bother making those stubs.  The real test is a well-participated AfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the comment above by SmokeyJoe. Some people seem to think that the concept of notability and GNG are well defined but to me they are extremely vague. The merit of SNG is that they are (or at least, ought to be) very precise. At the end of the day, if there is dispute, the issue can only be decided by discussion and consensus. The great merit of SNGs is that they can be discussed, and the result applied to many biographies. To me the main problem with SNGs is not the concept of them but the fact that many of them are currently badly formulated. Many attempts to reformulate them seem to mired down by supporters of the GNG concept who generally put a spanner in the works. Nigej (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But NSPORTS is frequently criticised as failing miserably at the "he SNGs are largely formulated as predictors of whether the sourcing would meet the GNG" requirement. It doesn't act as a good proxy like NFILM etc. There is good acceptance for some lower boundaries - GEOLAND etc. But for a modern (2000+) footballer etc, I wouldn't say the justifications for that apply. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I always thought that the paradigm should have been: Policy - an abstract idea with no implementation guidelines -> High-level guideline - detailing how to implement policy ideas -> Sub-guideline (if needed) - specific implementations per subject. In this case, WP:VERIFY -> WP:N -> WP:NSPORTS, with WP:NSPORTS not contradicting either of them, but supplementing specific sport related notability (an advantage of this kind of model is that the policy is only used an argument when changes are needed to a high-level guideline, and a high-level guideline is only used an argument when changes are needed for a sub-guideline. The sub-guideline should be the only thing used in AfD discussions). Sadly this isn't the case (and not only with WP:NSPORTS) --Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I do know of several sports wikiprojects who assume that "meets our SNG = automatically entitled to an article" and the SNG in question typically sets the inclusion bar so low that it allows the creation of nearly contentless microstubs based on sources without a single word of prose between them. Sometimes-- and I'm not exaggerating-- it is not even possible to unambiguously identify the player. But try to point out that this causes problems with WP:V and WP:BLP, and all you get is blank looks from AfD closers and a campaign of harassment from the wikiproject whose toes you trod on. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 13:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and that's exactly why this kind of RfC is needed - instead of arguing one-by-one at AfD and getting stampeded by a particular wikiproject, there should be a clear community-wide consensus (that one could easily reference and link to) on what to do with the (tons and tons) of sports bios that meet SNG but not GNG. Renata (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is in order to determine that a given sports biography fails to meet the general notability guideline, a discussion is needed, and so following the established procedure by discussing it at Articles for Deletion is appropriate. Changes to the guidelines to make them a better predictor of meeting the general notability guideline are welcomed at the discussion page for sports-specific notability guidelines, and they have been made more stringent for various sports over the years. Closers of AfD discussions should be following the guideline which explicitly states that meeting the sports-specific notability guideline does not automatically mean an article is warranted. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that often the "SNG in question typically sets the inclusion bar so low ..." To me this shows that the problem are the SNGs not other parts of the process. The SNGs need updating in many cases. Nigej (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue about the framing of the question is correct. We have to be clear that the GNG is not the bar for notability, it is still a rebuttable presumption for a standalone option. We want articles to develop to a point in their sourcing and coverage that there is no question of the topic's notability (eg we would never ever consider deleting World War II) Both the GNG and the SNGs are presumptions made to favor creation of articles and giving time for editors to work collaboratively to expand, but at the same time there has to be balance with the amount of content. --M asem (t) 14:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should have SNGs so that we can write articles instead of trying to defend them from being deleted. That's why I engaged in this discussion. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports). At the same time we should be able to delete non-notable athletes, as explains. The good point with the SNGs is that they provide an easy way to check. NSPORTS lacks for example rules about teams, which is strange. The team is notable for winning and whence the club/federation that put together that team. The members need not to be notable, as notability is not inherited. Per W (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Have a look at other Wikipedia's guidelines such as sv:Wikipedia:Att_skriva_om_sport (reasonably well translated by google). Per W (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think GiantSnowman has the right idea. Not every discussion needs to result in changes. Unless I'm missing something serious, I don't see the need to change anything.-- White Shadows Let’s Talk 22:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: Closes hinted above a couple times that AfD closers may be too lenient with allowing SNG to trump GNG. I am not aware how frequent that happens. However, my experience with NSPORTS—as a participant, not closer—is that the !voters often given more credence to SNG and its presumption that GNG is met. I suspect that the outcome of an AfD is often directly related to the proportion of !voters from an SNG-related WikiProject. At an extreme, the recent Articles_for_deletion/Cray_Valley_Paper_Mills_F.C. had many citing not an SNG but a WikiProject essay, which resulted in a "no consensus" close. It's the participants that dictate consensus. Those who want change need to help advocate the limitations of SNGs and draw wider participation at AfDs. We should not expect closers to WP:SUPERVOTE.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We've had this conversation before, too: I think guidelines are agreed upon by consensus precisely so the interested parties don't have to show up to AfD after AfD to re-discuss the same underlying principles of how meeting a sport-specific notability guideline isn't necessarily enough once sufficient investment has been made trying to find adequate coverage so that the general notability guideline can be met. If editors are expected to have these discussions ad infinitum, then there's no point in having guidelines. isaacl (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that clear cut. Consider Notability (sports)/FAQ, which says that there is "no fixed rule" for NSPORTS on what is a reasonable amount of time to uncover sources. If a large contingent cite guidline SNG, and a few expain how it doesn't meet GNG, there is nothing currently in any guideline that allows a closer to supersede the SNG camp because "enough time" has passed. Per the five pillars, "Wikipedia has no firm rules", and a closer generally should not dictate how participants apply guidelines.  About the only exception per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS where a closer should overrule editors' consensus is when policies—not guidelines—like WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:BLP are compromised.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's not easy to balance the two, because it's really hard to show that sources don't exist. But a closer can accept a presentation of the search that was made and agree with the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that appropriate sources exist (and they do it all the time when biographies are deleted). Wikipedia not having firm rules doesn't mean that all interpretations have equal weight; consensus generated from discussions with a broader, larger audience, for example, is more meaningful that those generated from a small number of people. Commenters who say "as per sport X's notability guideline" are availing themselves of this, by making reference to the consensus that agreed upon the guideline (otherwise, for each AFD they'd have to re-make the argument as to why the criteria in question are suitable to indicate Wikipedia notability). However for sports, this includes an explicit deferral to the general notability guideline. The sport-specific notability guidelines were written with this context in mind, and not designed as standalone tests. You can't pick-and-choose just one part of a previously established consensus and then treat it as if it has the same weight. isaacl (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the scenarios you describe are a minute percentage of gray-area AfDs, where the close could have gone either way and not be subject to WP:DRV. It's my impression that most "meets SNG"–"fails GNG" AfDs are a clear-cut rough consensus one way or the other. By rough consensus, I mean how the actual participants !voted, not if there "really" are sources (or not).  If you have specific AfD examples from the past, I think they would be better to discuss than hypothetical cases. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the point: in theory it's not a straight vote, but an evaluation of the existence of sources or the likelihood of sources turning up. Yes, I agree it's a small percentage of AfDs that actually delve into the likelihood of sources, because as I said, it's a hard thing to demonstrate. But it's that small percentage that gets all the flak, with people complaining that the sports-specific notability guidelines are too lax (even though they do get tightened up based on feedback), which re-triggers these same discussions that we're having. And in actuality most people are in general agreement, albeit with differences in emphasis (there are some basic differences in underlying principles in some cases, but nothing that alters what happens in practice), so it's just a big time sink. If these triggers could be minimized it would save these never-ending cycles. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim the sports-specific notability guidelines are too lax is basically "I don't like it." It is incredibly difficult and uncommon for an athlete to reach these levels. You could train every day and do everything right, and still not ever play in a fully professional football game. The sports notability guidelines are very high, and the athletes virtually universally receive a great deal of press. If this wasn't the case, the funds would not be available for them to be professional athletes. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is incredibly difficult and uncommon for an athlete to reach these levels. You could train every day and do everything right, and still not ever play in a fully professional football game. This is true of most careers. Sports are not special in this regard. athletes virtually universally receive a great deal of press Then that evidence should be presented at the AFD in question, not a handwave to the SNG. --Izno (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some were more lax and have been tightened up, so I'll venture that there are others that could benefit from being more strict. The key is how well they predict that the general notability guideline is met. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with sports is that it's not always clear on how the WP:GNG is met. (Compare to WP:AUTHOR, which provides clear guidelines for notability.) For instance, Major League Baseball has entire print encyclopaedias of anyone who has played on a major league diamond - the existence of these means a SNG allowing any MLB player to have an article will meet WP:GNG 99.9% if not 100% of the time. On the flip side, you have WP:NFOOTY which if a player doesn't meet the SNG has to delve into whether or not WP:GNG is met. The greyest areas, the Cray Valley AfDs, are basically an argument over very grey standards of notability. Also consider WikiProject_College_football/Notability which basically provide guidelines to keep the majority of the articles they create (I consider this the project with the lowest notability standards I've come across.) I'd personally like to see policy guidance on how to interpret WP:GNG for sports, especially along the lines of: when should coverage be considered routine for athletes AND teams, and when should coverage be considered significant for athletes which don't pass the SNG presumption? Coming from a football perspective, for players/managers/coaches, I'd look for at least two secondary articles which significantly cover the player. Teams are a bit different - I've made the argument several times consistent routine coverage makes clubs notable, mostly from my work into African teams - many top division African teams don't necessarily receive feature article-level stories but receive lots of continual coverage. Also consider encyclopaedias of top flight soccer teams exist (I own a "football atlas" from the early internet age that's now rather out-of-date). SportingFlyer  talk  07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For baseball, coverage in baseball-specific encyclopedias is considered to be routine coverage, and so isn't an appropriate source to determine that the standard for having an article is met. There has been discussions on the talk page for the sports-specific notability guidelines regarding judging sources based on the extent of its audience, and on needing to take into account the promotional nature of local sports journalism. But there hasn't been enough engagement from a suitable number of editors to establish a consensus view. The notability of teams hasn't been discussed in much detail (with the recent changes to the notability guideline for organizations, a few conversations have been started but they didn't progress very far). I suspect, though, the key sticking point with a standard that didn't include any feature article-level stories is that it would be hard to write a reasonably descriptive article without them. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to draftify UDP-tagged articles
Currently we have just 780 articles tagged with template:Undisclosed paid (UDP), a particular aspect of more general template:COI. I think mere tagging for suspected UDP editing is toothless - the potential paid editor gets the job done anyway and the article becomes indexed by search engines, hanging around indefinitely until someone cleans it. Moving all UDP-tagged articles to the non-indexed draft space and keeping them there untill they're fixed and ready to return to the mainspace could be a good solution. Also in this option, any new UDP-tagged article might be draftified by any registered user. If adopted, the proposal might entail corresponding addendums in relevant pages. Thoughts (support, oppose, comments)? Brandmeistertalk  13:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I like this idea, as it would remove those problematic articles to a more appropriate space where they can be dealt with properly, subject to the AfC criteria. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 19:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This would reduce the automatic "BOGO" that many paid editors count on. John from Idegon (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Although it would be interesting to know if the relevant templates could also apply noindex as an alternative. — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainspace pages aren't noindexable. —Cryptic 01:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless someone changed something again when I wasn't looking,, new pages are default NOINDEX, until passed by NPP or 90 days old. Oh, wait....I read that wrong. So, yeah. I like the idea of the UDP template adding the NOINDEX back in addition to draftified. Anything that pushes UPE editors into outing themselves is a good thing in my book. John from Idegon (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that either this requires a software change, or that all paid pages are found and fully dealt with before the 90-day cutoff before indexability stops being configurable. Neither of those are realistic in the least. —Cryptic 03:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the software, nor do I care to. So I'll take your word for it. However, that does not affect the original proposal, ya? John from Idegon (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The UPE template already applies NOINDEX and the page will stay NOINDEXed even if patrolled for 90 days after creation. MER-C 13:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good tidbit I was not aware of. But there's also the possibility to alleviate the mainspace and cut off potential traffic to such articles - several dozens UPE articles are already in drafts. Brandmeistertalk  18:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Are supposed to go through AfC anyway. One thing to consider is the "undisclosed paid articles" that make it through AfC, should we deal with these differently? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that those that have passed AfC do not require cleanup requested in the UDP template, at least in the reviewed AfC version. If UDP is still suspected, they could be sent back to drafts. Brandmeistertalk  21:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, and I'm not alone, AfC is kinda like economics. We all know ideally that's how it should work, but in actuality, it doesn't always. John from Idegon (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This sounds like a good idea, as the authorship violates the site's terms of service. However, would not the lag between creation and detection allow for search engine indexing in some % of cases?  Also, could someone point me at a description (or put it here if brief) of how one determines that the content has been paid for, particularly if undisclosed?  Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - I'd like a second pair of eyes on each of the articles before they are moved to draftspace. I'm leery about doing this automatically where it allows any editor to unilaterally move any page to draft.    Tazerdadog (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sticky Prod, as suggested below, is a better solution which I fully support. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While I support the general idea, I'm not sure moving pages into draftspace where they will disappear from the eyes of other editors is the best way. Natureium (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written. We should not automatically userfy pages just because someone slapped a template:Undisclosed paid on it. Really, if no one is planning on improving these articles, sending them to draft space is just a delayed WP:CSD G13 death sentence. If we want to delete these articles, we should use the existing CSD or AFD processes, and only send them to draft space if there is a editor without a COI issue who plans to improve the article in the 6 month window. If they haven't already been nominated for deletion under existing policy, and instead are stuck with the Undisclosed paid tag, its because they still add value to the encyclopedia, not withstanding the issue with their primary contributor. Monty  845  04:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a sticky PROD that couldn't be removed by the creator. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * #1 choice sticky PROD. This deals with the article quickly and keeps it visible for those who may be interested in fixing it. The stickiness should require the remover to place oldprodfull with  and   filled out ie disallow 'I just don't like prod's prod removal'.  Personally I would like to see that requirement for all PRODs but I know a loosing battle when I see one :) #2 choice support proposal for moving them to draft but it seems to be the less accountable and reviewable of the two. Regardless, if this is to become a regular thing, a tracking category should be added when either is done to facilitate review.  Jbh  Talk  11:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As it's currently set up, the draft namespace is only for short-term collaboration on future articles, so unless there are editors who have expressly volunteered to work on an article, and there's agreement that this article is not ready for mainspace, then it shouldn't be draftified. In practical terms, sending an article to draft will be useless if the COI editor is still around, as they're likely to be motivated enough to move it back; and if there are no editors (with a COI or without) watching it, then the move is most likely to result in the silent "expiry" of the draft after six months – this is deletion by the backdoor and should not be encouraged. Additionally, the fact that a given article has been edited by someone suspected of UDP is not a single problem that has a single solution, it's simply an indication of a more basic problem. Fundamentally, this might be an issue of either notability – in which case deletion via the proper channels is the way to proceed, or of neutrality and sourcing – in which case it's better to rewrite the article or simply to remove any suspicious parts, even if this means paring it down to a one-sentence stub. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand these concerns about "deletion by the backdoor" even if I supported. A good approach if this passes and there is enough will to make it happen, would be to make a temporary trial (i.e. I remember of WP:ACTRIAL), then evaluate with stats if it helped.  It may help in some ways: (quickly unindex pages vs deletion processes, permit more time to work on them, for instance) which is why I think it's worth trying.  If it results in draft space becoming unwieldy other procedures may need changes...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support if not fully automatic, per concern raised by Tazerdadog and Monty845. It needs human review, because not every tagging will have been valid, and some valid ones will already have been resolved without removing the tag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - I'm with SMcCandlish here, although I'd prefer mass draftify over leaving them alone.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  00:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Regulars to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or NPP would observe that this is already starting to become practice when dealing with promotional articles. I prefer sticky prod over draftifying -- spammers sometimes continue to work on the draft and move it into mainspace (either with the original account, socks, meatpuppets or a different spamming company altogether). Paid-for spam in many cases can't be fixed, because the subject may be non-notable and the article's very existence is promotional. Sticky prod satisfies the desire above to have review of any pages affected by this proposal. MER-C 12:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Prodding could be a good alternative. To severe oxygen supply for paid efforts and convey WP:GAME message this might entail mass prodding of all such tagged articles and possibly prescribing in policy that articles tagged for UDP might or should be prodded. Brandmeistertalk  19:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if the spammer and any non-autoconfirmed user (covert advertising frequently involves large sockfarms) are prohibited from removing the deletion messages. MER-C 20:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, noting similarity to my Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product proposal.
 * The sticky PROD idea looks just as good. How long until the UPE-PROD results in deletion?  In the case of the sticky UPE-PROD idea, who is the non-UPE false positive editor supposed to respond?  If they make a response, surely it must demand reading before deletion?  Who would read it, how would they be drawn to the response?
 * I think quarantining outside mainspace has the advantage to retaining UPE edit histories that may be helpful to non-admins in detecting patterns. I continue to submit that there are probably far few UPE people than UPE accounts, and that an awful lot of UPE product is the result of a few Wikipedians among us.  The deletion of identified UPE product helps prevent detection of the puppet master.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Too often articles that are plain articles are kept "because normal editing van fix that". In fact, the editors claiming that never alter a letter in such articles. Do you remove the spam, you get flak. And if you don not get flak, the spammer put everything back in. The COI-noticeboard also seems ineffective in dealing with that. So this is a good alternative. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Way to easy to just let them be.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support sticky prod proposal as that is far more visible, open and accountable with deletion by an admin if necessary. Any editor being allowed to move articles to draft is wideopen to abuse either in error or deliberate in cases of edit wars, vandalism, incompetence and even UPEditors paid for deleting rival companies pages etc, also drafted articles are easily forgotten and mistagged articles would be unfairly deleted as G13s are mainly deleted on mass with little oversight. Also, this should not be retrospective as it would cause a huge backlog of prods to deal with, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not safe enough--it's too easy to apply the tag incorrectly. It is sometimes very difficult to  judge if it is actually paid editing, and even those of us who have been working on it for years inevitably make errors. . As for s sticky prod-like procedure,I assume we are talking about a proceed to move to draft, not to delete.  it's worth considering, but I'm reluctant to add another procedure to an already complicated process that already engenders multiple disputes about how to proceed.  DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DGG and because if the text is suspicious then it's better to delete and start from scratch. Otherwise we look like we're restricting unrelated users from their normal editing process and forcing or encouraging them to edit the text outside main namespace. --Nemo 12:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on text highlighting in signatures
Just a heads up to page watchers that I've started an RfC on whether to disallow text highlighting in signatures at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Comments welcome there. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

FOOTYN (again)
The Wikiproject Football notability essay, WP:WikiProject_Football/Notability (commonly linked as WP:FOOTYN), is still being used as an argument of notability/lack of notability in deletion discussions. I attempted to forestall this by adding a link and note at the club section pointing to WP:NTEAM (the actual SNG related to teams) and advising not to use the essay as an argument for inherent notability in deletion discussions. I have twice been reverted by for adding a supplemental hatnote to the club notability section at WP:WikiProject_Football/Notability.

I have opened a section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability to discuss this addition, but wanted to post here to draw wider community input. Please comment at the talk page of the relevant page rather than here. Cheers, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing restriction logging discussion
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions regarding the logging of restrictions imposed as an unblocking condition, as well as formal logging of editor warnings. Administrators and editors are invited to participate in the discusson. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Should WP:TWL be allowed to acknowledge the services they have partnership with in our articles?
This is a follow up to User_talk:CitationCleanerBot. According to and, they put citations like

by the reasoning "It wasn't used to advertise the service; it was used to acknowledge the access provided by Project Muse to certain Wikipedia users." This is apparently to comply with partnership requirements where they have gained personal access to pay-for-access databases (in this case Project MUSE) through The Wikipedia Library, where in return they need to mention in our articles that they had made use of Project MUSE.

Should the practice be allowed to continue? Or under which condition should via be used? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

TWL discussion
Disallow: This is something that is a textbook WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO situation. Citations exist to verify our material, not advertise pay-for-access academic services. While we have links that often point to paywalled ressources, such as DOIs in our article, those are vendor-neutral identifiers are there to help identify the citation. WP:SAYWHERE is clear about this:

"The advice to 'say where you read it' does not mean that you have to give credit to any search engines, websites, libraries, library catalogs, archives, subscription services, bibliographies, or other sources that led you to Smith's book. If you have read a book or article yourself, that's all you have to cite. You do not have to specify how you obtained and read it. [emphasis mine]"

The following fully complies with WP:SAYWHERE, and links to Project MUSE resources in a way that does not unduly promote a commercial service. Further, using the URL to further link to the paywalled Project MUSE is fully redundant with the DOI, and discourages editors from finding non-paywalled versions of the paper.

Things like are ridiculous.

This is a horrendous practice, and one that needs to end now. If Project MUSE wants attribution in some way, that can be done in edit summaries, or via the talk page. Not in the main bodies of our articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment to be clear, I have been formatting citations in that manner because I understand that that is what TWL requires. I see the concern about being promotional, but as we routinely link to sites that are inherently promotional (official websites, twitter accounts, paywall protected newspapers, newspapers that don't have paywalls because the use ad revenue which eventually comes from consumers, etc) I'm not overly worked up about this. All I would like is to continue to be able to use these resources to provide more reliable and detailed information, which is what this should be about. If the community compels TWL to remove this requirement, I'm not remotely bothered. Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * TWL Comment Just to clarify, using the  parameter is not a requirement of citing resources obtained through The Wikipedia Library, and the citations found on the old signup pages (e.g. Project MUSE) are only a suggestion for a fully formatted citation. I can absolutely see how the text there makes it seem like more of a requirement, however, and I’ll rewrite that section to make it clearer, in addition to the note that is already present.


 * As far as I’m aware, the parameter was initially added to these citation examples simply because it was present in the citation templates and has uses in cases where the URL doesn’t point to the location the source was found. It’s also useful because it saves you mousing over or clicking a URL to know where the citation is from. Ultimately though, the discussion about whether the parameter is useful is unrelated to TWL.


 * We’re not concerned whether this parameter is kept in the suggested citation style or not, and are happy to change it based on the outcome of this discussion. Given that the parameter isn’t a requirement of using TWL, however, I’d suggest reframing the discussion around whether use of the ‘via’ parameter is desired in any context. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm very glad to hear this is not a requirement. However, The_Wikipedia_Library/Publishers specifically mentions, in the "Exposure and promotion", "Publisher credit using the via parameter of our citation templates". Maybe this is the source of confusion? Or possibly pages like Credo/Citations and other similar pages? If this isn't a requirement, those pages should be updated to de-promotionalize those services.  and, what led you to believe that using via to 'credit' Project MUSE was required/encouraged? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The instructions in question are the ones found at Project MUSE, which say, among other things, that editors should "provide original citation information in addition to linking to Project MUSE resources" and "Cite resources in line with the citation examples provided below or with the examples provided by Project MUSE" (the example in question uses the via parameter. The version of the instructions that existed when I received access was even more definitive about this. Vanamonde (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment If you're going to be opening a policy RFC, please at least try to frame it neutrally. The above is closer to a diatribe and I would really rather strongly implore you to retract it and try again once your apparent indignation has had time to recede a bit.Second, The TWL partnerships do not "require" much of anything. The TWL effort suggests that per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT you use via etc. in a specific way for sources from that particular archive or service when appropriate. So when you access a journal article through a third party service—rather than on paper in your local library or directly from the publisher—you specify that you're citing the copy provided there rather than an original. The TWL example citations have been formed based on SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and are intended to be used in accordance with SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, including their mostly being optional and when it is not appropriate to include such via parameters.By all means lets discuss the finer points of how we should apply SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT to the TWL resources, but please don't let your knee-jerk reaction based on limited (and obviously skewed) information turn that discussion into a pointless drama fest that will achieve nothing but tarnish the coordinators and other volunteers working very hard to improve the encyclopedia. Please. --Xover (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The RFC is framed neutrality. My !vote expresses my opinion. Nothing wrong with that. You're welcomed to make a support case if you have one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see, the problem is you've set up a strawman (just about zero of the assertions and underlying assumptions in the current RFC framing are true) and now you're asking me to argue against it.I have no objection what so ever to discussing how TWL should recommend that citations to sources that happened to be accessed through a TWL partner's donated access be done. Nor to discussing how SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to cases like these (of which some, but not all, sources made available through donated partner services are examples, but in no way unique in that regard). Nor to discussing the purpose in general, or finer points of application of, the via parameter. I might even have some opinions on some of these issues (then again, probably not enough to argue about them). You want to do any of those things, have at it. Heck, if for some reason you need my help with any of those, I'd be happy to step up.But we can't have any of those discussions, at least not productively, in an RFC framed in an inflamatory way (That is, "in a way that is likely to have the effect of inflaming", not "in a way intended to inflame") and based on incorrect information. So, again, please—please!—reconsider: either by reframing the current RFC, or by withdrawing and trying again when you're less outraged by what is incorrect information! --Xover (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Allow when it adds something. E.g., we routinely use Google Books for books that Google is providing snippet views of and other "digitally digested" content, because we are not looking at the literal book itself and cannot, e.g., be 100% that the book's original text, pagination, etc. were preserved correctly by Google's OCR and other munging. We don't need to use it for old-book scans that Google hosts, because they are exact photographic facsimilies (often including the library cards :-).   It's useful to say that you got a journal article via a particular journals database, because you are not literally reading the actual journal, but a PDF prepared from submitted content not a scan, or an HTML text-and-images relayout, or something like that (sometimes it's even a pre-print copy which may be pre-peer-review, too – same goes for arXiv), not a photographic facsimile.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's fine, I'm not arguing for a blanket ban on via. I'm only talking about cases where there's no URL given, when things are redundant with links that are already provided by identifiers, or that the reproduction hosted by Database X is a faithful reproduction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit the template. The "via" parameter is plainly dangerous, because it advertises random third parties.  I don't get the argument that it isn't as bad if you're talking about Google Books, either.  But, we also have a duty to the readers to help them access the material.  So we should change the template as follows:


 * All "via" links should display the same text -- "access notes". This avoids any appearance of spam, and can be a neat, regular format.  The "access notes" would be a link, of course, and could be set off with a cute/recognizable box using inline CSS: access notes or some such.  And the links, naturally, go to different places depending on the via=parameter.
 * All "via" links link to pages in Wikipedia space, e.g. WP:Access help/Project MUSE. The template can even be designed for reverse compatibility to process the links it receives to add the WP:Access help/ part so the existing via link texts go new places, but new links should name a WP: space page directly (and thus not be altered).  The reason for this is that Wikipedia articles are "WP:NOT", whereas what access help should be is absolutely, completely, one hundred percent HOWTO.  That's an unacceptable philosophical incompatibility.  We want to tell readers any and all options to get access when via= gives a particular mechanism, but are interested there in nothing else about it.
 * Our WP pages should then each explain their particular "via" mechanisms for the readers, including whether they can become editors and apply for access, or pay for it, or try to get lucky with an inconsistent server (I'm thinking Google Books) using any legally acceptable trick like using a VPN or TOR. (Actually I don't know if this works ... obviously the composition of these pages will be the topic of some specialized expertise and debate)


 * Wnt (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That forgets one thing: WP:TWL is an editor resource, not a reader resource. The way to help readers access things it to find free-to-read resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't forget that. If we have a Wikipedia-space page on MUSE we can tell readers they don't easily get access via this route.  But we can also point out that they can ask editors about it.  And of course, any Wikipedia reader can become an editor -- it's never to be ruled out -- so TWL is at least nominally an access mechanism.  I am actually not sure how TWL plays with WP:WRE -- are there TWL editors listed under the latter, or can you request copies of specific resources via that means?  The distinction between "interlibrary loan" and "piracy" is utterly mythical and of paramount legal importance. Wnt (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * TWL Followup Just a note that I've reworded the old signup page template to make it clearer that there's no required citation style or parameter usage, and also reworded or removed explicit mentions of the via parameter elsewhere. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Allow - I liken it to a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license—it serves to benefit the project. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 16:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the "via" information is most useful when you consider it as a 'warning' about the URL, similar to a PDF icon after an external link. To that end, I think it would be better if the citation looked more like this:  "The Good Witch of the West (via Project MUSE)" (etc.).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto WhatamIdoing. It's just more context for the citation. I have a weak disinclination to support reformatting the link to say "access notes" since requiring a separate click defeats the point of having that handy context (they can just click the link itself and see where it takes them, after all). If it were a requirement that it be formatted a particular way, that would be one thing, but it sounds like it's not, so it's just using the template as it's intended. I'll add that I also don't have a problem with TWL encouraging people to use it. This seems along the lines of "remember to include the title of the publication when you cite it". If reminding people to use the procedures/templates they should/could be using anyway indirectly helps more people get access, that seems like a win. It's when it becomes mandatory that it's a little more uncomfortable. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 05:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disallow all paywalled links and  notices, except when they add something for the reader (e.g. Google Books preview) AND when that wouldn't be already linked through DOI/PMID etc. We're not an affiliate site. There's already an annoying amount of paywalled links (e.g. Highbeam) to newspaper articles that are readily available for free from the newspaper website or archive.org. BTW I was less than impressed the Project MUSE's crappy primary-sourced, unreadable Wikipedia page. What do they offer that we should bend the rules for? I'd rather do this for arXiv, the awareness of which the readers at large could actually benefit from.  Daß  &thinsp;  Wölf  00:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Allow this is completely unnecessary, we shouldn't hide where a source came from, if its available freely then the ref should be altered to point to the free version, overall this is a bureaucratic instruction creep, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disallow rather obviously. We wouldn't add "via=through library X in city Y", even though that may well be how the person who added the source acquired the information (never mind "through Amazon" if one bought the book there!). The article should not have information about "who" added something or "how" they acquired their copy of the information specifically. Stuff like this may at most belong on the article talk page, although even there it seems unnecessary. Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also a big problem here that if we remove attribution to the archives they will remove free archive access through the Wikipedia library that many of us use and who cannot afford the expensive subscriptions. Also if a source is available from a library they can order it from out of the region/state whereas an archived link may be the only accessible point of entry so it seems contrary to attribution to hide that information from the public. Also if they are regular editors and see the archive they may be prompted to go to the Wikipedia library and request access, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about archives deciding to quit supporting The Wikipedia Library. I think that's an unlikely outcome.  The bigger problem IMO is sending readers to this type of website without telling them where that link goes.  In this case (unlike with a direct link to an academic journal), there's almost nothing in these big archives that couldn't be found through some other provider.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Daß Wölf makes a good point. --Nemo 12:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Allow. I agree that the URL and via parameters should be omitted when the DOI redirects to the same URL. Other than that, I see several potential use cases for via and am not at all bothered by its inclusion even where it is unnecessary.
 * Reasons for the via parameter:
 * To clarify links from multiple sources.Also available via ProQuest.
 * To help the reader find the item. This can broadly apply to all links to sources other than the publisher.
 * To alert the reader which subscription service it is behind. When the content is behind a paywall, and the reader may want to know which one if they have subscriptions to some and not others.
 * Many TWL citations can claim at least one of these legitimate purposes, even if I would prefer the via parameter be omitted in most cases. Daask (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on anime film articles
Hello. There's an important RfC regarding which companies are to be listed in the infobox for anime films. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Double images with "left:" and "right:" as their captions are confusing for mobile readers
Some articles contain two images sharing one caption to show that they are related. Often they are captioned with "Left: (Description) Right: (Description)". The problem with this is that on | mobile wikipedia, under a certain screen size, the images become stacked which could cause readers on phones to misunderstand them. Because of this a new policy may need to be made to specify how to caption these double images in some way other than left and right but it is unclear how it should be done. Some possibilities are: 🌸  WeegaweeK   ^  🌸 17:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "First:" and "Second:"
 * "One:" and "Two:"
 * A template that changes between "Left: (description) Right: (description)" and something else based on the screen size.
 * Indeed. Imo the multiple image template is incredibly overused. Some editors seem to go round converting lots of articles to it for no real reason except practicing their formatting skills. It should only be used where the images form a natural pair for comparison or contrast, and should be deprecated otherwise. The valid concern raised here is only one of the problems with these. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's already against the "rules"; see Manual of Style/Images. Please fix those problems whenever you see them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Capitalization of Senator
At Talk:Dan_Sullivan_(American_senator) it is pointed out that Senator and Senators are often capitalized when they should not be per MOS:JOBTITLES; e.g. should be List of U.S. senators from X, but U.S. Senate and Senator Smith. Do we have consensus to fix this widespread error with the help of scripts, bots, or other tools? -- Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Political titles are often improperly capitalized. I don't think we need consensus to fix those errors. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above from Ajraddatz. --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We do need consensus. I think you both mean we already have it via clear guidelines, so we don't need this RFC. I tend to agree, but when asking for bot help one needs to be sure. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We have consensus per WP:JOBTITLES. We don't have to litigate every single job title individually, the existing policy covers the lot of them.  Given the millions of potential job titles, it would get tedious to start an RFC for each of them.  On the question of the use of a bot, I tend to lean against the automated fixing, as there is too much opportunity for doing it wrong.  But there should be no problem with a human fixing them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, are there any objections to this bot request I just submitted: Bot_requests? I realize this won't fix everything; maybe we can find more patterns that are safe to do automatically. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with bots is that they are notoriously bad at determining context. This seems like something that should be done manually. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As the linked bot proposal shows, this would involve only specific narrow contexts that a bot can easily get right; 250 moves (5 per state) and links to them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made multiple objections on that page. Most are technical in nature and don't need to be repeated here.  However, I'm not convinced that changing "United States Senator" to "United States senator" is correct.  I agree that "American senator" or "Colorado senator" is the correct capitalization, as the word senator is merely a descriptor and not a title in that phrasing.  While it's not quite the same, the capitalization of United States Attorney does not appear to be in dispute. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping you'll follow up there to explain; I don't understand your objections. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, I have filed a CFD discussion regarding Category:Alabama State Senators; Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 17 is the log-page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I support that one. But don't understand your objections to my proposal.  Looking forward to clarification on the bot page, as that's where more of the details are. Dicklyon (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see these category moves were unanimously supported and executed already. That's encouraging. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support bot treatment, but perhaps it should be by human review. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  03:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The intention is to do by bot only cases in which human review is clearly not necessary. Please review the revised proposal at Bot_requests and say if there are any reservations about the possbility of a bot following that narrow proposal could need human review. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia self-advertising (e.g. 'Monuments')
This repeated badgering of readers is inappropriate, and should stop.

It is irrelevant to our mission - to provide reliable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWheater (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-profits market themselves and their activities routinely. Promoting ourselves and our sister projects aids in our mission to provide free knowledge and content to anyone in every language. So long as it doesn’t reach mainspace in actual article content, it’s fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy for this, because the Wiki Loves Monuments banners seem to re-appear more frequently than average. However, the purpose of the banners is to encourage people to "provide reliable information" in the form of photos about encyclopedic subjects.  We can't provide all of that reliable information if we can't find someone who can go out and take a picture, and those banners have been hugely effective at collecting that information.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What it takes to write an encyclopedia article
If you are interested in the nature of notability – why some potential subjects can be developed into separate articles, while some equivalent subjects are better presented as part of a larger article – then you might be interested in watching Articles for deletion/Chitty (cricketer). I think there are a couple of thoughtful comments there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirects from specific examples to lists that don't mention the examples
It occurs to me that I may not be clear about proper procedure concerning redirects (or concerning RfD).

My assumption is that a band not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia should not point to a list of bands simply because it is a band, that we should not have redirects from websites to lists of websites that don't include that website, and that we shouldn't have a pile of redirects to a list of software from specific examples of that software that aren't mentioned in our list (or anywhere on Wikipedia).

If I'm right, could someone highlight exactly where it says that? If I'm not right, what am I missing? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem you raise may be due to the dynamic nature of Wikipedia... ie the fact that articles are edited and change over time. It may be that the list being pointed to in the redirect did (at one time) mention the band/website/software... but was subsequently edited and the mention of band/website/software removed.  In other words, the redirect may have made sense at the time it was created, but NOW no longer does. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed the list did include them. I'll give the specific context here, since I don't think this comes close to convassing. List of video game emulators was, at one point, kind of a link farm/all-inclusive directory. It's not anymore, but it retains about 60 redirects from the names (and variations of names) of specific software no longer mentioned there or, generally, anywhere on Wikipedia. Some of those articles were deleted at AfD, some were redirected while the list was still all-inclusive, some never existed. When I tagged the redirects for RfD, I was surprised to see two experienced editors !vote keep. Since it seemed like such an obvious case for deletion to me, for the reasons above, I was then surprised that I could not find a clearly articulated policy that says what I thought it said (other than #10, which is sorta kinda). So here I am. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are referring to the practice of "redirect term which is not mentioned at its target" as a deletion criterion, yet which does not appear at WP:R? --Izno (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the one. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be found reasonably in the intent of RD2, which is The redirect might cause confusion. (never mind the example). I think when a redirect term is not mentioned at its target, it's going to be confusing to the reader who follows the redirect. --Izno (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also WP:Astonish. I believe a reader would be astonished/confused if redirected to an article that does not even mention the term. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful if this were made explicit. It happens too often as it is, and it's too hard to get rid of them. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this is overall a bad idea. I looked at RFD just now, and half a dozen people are invoking this non-rationale to delete things like the redirects from music albums, on the grounds that the music album doesn't happen to be mentioned in the current(!) version of the article.  In most cases, the harm seems to be hypothetical (Do we really think that some reader who typed in the name of a music album would actually be confused upon being redirected to the article about the band?  I'll buy "disappointed", but not "confused" in such cases), and the imagined benefit appears to be, well, imaginary (in most cases).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A lot of names of music albums are not obviously names of music albums, so I think this could indeed be confusing. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually confusing for someone who already knows the name of the album? (Because how else are you going to type it into the search box?)
 * And wouldn't this be the sort of thing that gets fixed by editing the article rather than deleting things? I'm pretty sure that Deletion is not cleanup even at RFD.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An album is very different. It is standard for an article about a band/musician to include a discography of major works. In that case, if not currently mentioned, it would be easy to just add it. It's a rare case of a fairly standard list in an article. That is the exception, though. Many lists, like the one this section concerns, are lists of examples, not exhaustive lists that one could expect to find. It is not the case that just because we have a list of examples of X that any instance of X that exists in the world would make sense to redirect to that list. In the list of redirects to the list of video game emulators, it is not the case that it would be appropriate to add any of them to the list. I don't think this is really about those cases when it's obvious that the [album, etc.] could be added but hasn't yet. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 05:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Dab page equivalent MOS:DABRL discourages entries where the blue link does not mention the term. Whatever we decide, I would think the guidelines for redirects and dab entries should be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Dab entries are visibly displayed, and deserve a stricter criterion for inclusion than what a redirect needs for existence. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A reader should not end up at a page that does not readily give them information on the term that they entered. It's equally annoying if they get to the "wrong" page whether it is via a redirect or a dab page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but where you end up and what's displayed on a disambig page are non-equivalent things. Displaying on a disambig page invites one to go there, while a redirect is only invoked if one types it (or links it) explicitly. So the bar is at a different level, imho. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It is true that there is no policy that explicitly addresses what this concerns, and it is possible to interpret others in ways that conflict, clearly. I remain rather convinced that it is not standard practice to keep redirects from specific examples to general topics/lists of examples when the latter makes no mention whatsoever of the former, and I'm surprised to see people arguing against doing just that. It seems we may need an RfC to add that language to RFD... &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to Adopt Blocking IP addresses as Policy
I'm thinking about proposing that we adopt Blocking IP addresses as policy. Currently it is only an WP:INFOPAGE, but really it describes what I think should be binding policy. Before I do this, does anyone have any reason I should reconsider proposing this? -Obsidi (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks more like a Guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wen't back and forth on that. I guess it could be a guidelines of the blocking policy, maybe that is more appropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy is the blocking policy, where most of the important details are already written. We don't need another policy page on the subject, IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with zzuuzz. This is an informational page but anything that should be codified as policy is already in the blocking policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Before even considering making it a policy, the obvious problems in it should be fixed.
 * One example: it says "If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee" but never tells you when and where either the WMF or the Wikipedia community made that a requirement.
 * Another example: The top of the page has the usual "This is an information page... It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" language, but two of the section titles are "Policies" and "Guidelines" --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, per zzuuzz. This is a solution looking for a problem.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for an update of size calculations for splitting an article
The "rule of thumb" listed in Article size for splitting an article has not changed since 2008 (at least). Is it possible to update these values? because I feel that some good articles (therefore long) are unnecessarily split by following this rule, thus reducing Wikipedia's readability. Nowadays, articles are significantly lengthened by the increased use of citations (many articles have hundreds of citations, often with external links). Browsers have made significant progress in ten years and can display such large pages; I think it is time for a change. Values in the scale should be at least doubled imo. Another way to improve this rule would be to exclude citations/references from the calculation. T8612 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The size guidelines are for readable prose size, so citations/references are indeed excluded. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, I'd say we can probably just toss out the article size suggestions that are based in the page's database size. Text is easy to load, it's all our fancy images that lag slow connections, and there's CSS and scripts and stuff that lag fast connections on slow computers too. On the other hand the guideline does deal largely with readable prose, and that's not a matter of technical limitation. Maybe we should update the WP:SIZERULE portion to be in terms of word count, rather than kilobytes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If the issue behind this guideline is loading time, why not placing the limitation on this, instead of text length? T8612 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How would a normal editor determine that? People have different experiences with load time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup, those figures are way too large and need to be shrunk. I'd recommend 30KiB as an upper limit. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted it does not include citations notes etc, only readable prose size. Also, 'make it shorter' just sounds like good writing advice.  So, not in favor (perhaps, if you proposed, 'make it shorter? :)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The real problem is that they are not being enforced. Every time I point out an article is over 100kb rps ("Almost certainly should be divided") the response is that it's such an important and big topic... People simply ignore Summary style, although that's one of our most important writing guidelines. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps articles that are listed as vital articles could get an upper limit, as they would really be considered important? T8612  14:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes how about we increase the readable text size upper limit to 200,000 characters
 * No, let's not recommend larger pages. In fact, let's see about encouraging articles (not including all lists) to be shorter than the currently contemplated upper limits. I see three unrelated problems with large pages:
 * Most people won't read long pages. A typical reader expects less than 1,000 words.  Why?  Because most of the other content they encounter is less than 500 words.  A traditional "full-length" newspaper article was around 800 words.  Even in-depth investigative articles rarely exceed a couple thousand words.  Most native English speakers can sustain a reading speed of about 200 words per minute.  That means that if you write "just" 2,000 words, you're expecting people to spend 10 minutes reading it.  If you write 10,000 words (the longest SIZE contemplates), you're expecting them to dedicate nearly an hour to reading your article.  This is already exceedingly unlikely.  I've written a 6,000+ word article; I have no illusions that people will spend half an hour reading it.  It was interesting to write, but I sometimes look at it and think that I should find a way to condense it, partly because more people would read it if it were at least 20% shorter, and partly because:
 * Encyclopedias are supposed to be concise. Concision is one of the key characteristics of an encyclopedia.  Articles in the famous 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica ran around 1,000 words each.  Sure, we might not be constrained by the cost of paper, and maybe our ideal article might average double that, but making articles be an entire orders of magnitude longer than a traditional encyclopedia article, or even 30 times that length as suggested by the person who forgot to sign the above comment, suggests that we've stopped writing encyclopedia articles, and started writing some other sort of reference work.  If you think back to when you wrote "long" papers for school – typed on paper, double-spaced – it should be pretty obvious why these numbers are well beyond generous for an encyclopedia article.  That "10,000 words" is a 40-page-long paper (yes, forty pages).  That's the length of a very long academic article (many prestigious academic journals limit authors to a maximum of half that length) or the length of a short novella, not an encyclopedia article.  Also, encouraging length inevitably results in needless filler, so we'll get needless length, unencyclopedic verbosity, and bad writing to boot.  We're not getting much educational value out of increasing length, especially when you understand that:
 * Some people cannot load long pages. You can't give everyone access to the sum of all human knowledge if the page is too long for them to read on their devices.  Sure, my relatively modern Mac can handle long pages just fine – but not everybody has my internet connection, and not everybody has a laptop.  Desktop browsers have made significant strides, but half(!) of our traffic comes from mobile devices, and mobile devices today, especially if you are using a cheap one, are worse than laptops were when this rule was updated.
 * So, no, I don't think we should be increasing our page sizes. Let's stick with the goal of being an encyclopedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to change. The guidelines already exclude references and anything other than article prose, so the initial proposal is already effectively satisfied. On the other hand, I want to specifically oppose suggestions of reduction to "30KiB", or to impose a hard cap. We have a guideline on when an article is probably getting to big. I will note United States as an example case. The Page Information lists the length as 411,566 including refs and wikitext. However for guideline purposes the prose is around 125k. Every section and subsection has already been condensed to summary form with a hatnote to at least one article, and on average three hatnote links each. If someone is looking for something specific, the Table Of Contents will jump them to a condensed summary of what they want. I'd also like to address the comparison to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I just checked the 1911 Britannica article for United States. It appears in Volume 27, and runs from page 612 to 735. That's over one hundred and twenty pages. Assuming I didn't botch my quicky math, it appears to be over 1,000k long. We would have to expand the United States article eight times longer to be comparable to 1911 Britannica. Our page for United States is ridiculously short by Encyclopedia standards, because we can and do spin off pages for subtopics as appropriate. Reducing the guideline or enforcing a firm number would be damaging for inherently large topics. Alsee (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * s:1911_Encyclopædia Britannica/United States, The has the contents. "The article", as you are presumably counting it, is two paragraphs followed by ten sections (written by different people) that contain about 180,000 words.  The shortest section, at 378 words, is on the Military of the United States, and the longest section is about 100,000 words on the History of the United States.  Since we structure these "sections" by putting them in separate articles, I'm not convinced that we have to expand anything at all:  we have already bested them.   However, it still remains the case that the average "finished" article in EB1911 is around 1,000 words – considerably smaller than what we encourage.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any warning displayed during editing when the target value is exceeded? Samsara 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It might be useful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason, to give you an example, why we are able to keep World War II under 100 kB but World War I is "too big and important" a topic, other than misguided WP:OWNership. Every time WP:TOOBIG is invoked, "Almost certainly should be divided" gets turned on its head and the status-quo that "Almost certainly" shouldn't prevail, almost certainly prevails. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Outside of lists/tables, there's nearly always ways to split articles as outline in WP:SS, and I agree that it often comes to ownership that "Too big" pages don't get split. Given that we are literally not paper, there is almost never a need for a monolithic article (and that's where we have things like WP:BOOKS to actually create large groups of articles that encompass a topic for that need all that information in one place). The current SIZE requirements meet the balance of all users quite well. --M asem (t) 22:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One thought to add to what has been written: should our articles attempt to be comprehensive, if not authoritative, in how they cover the subject, or serve as an introduction to the subject? If they are intended to be comprehensive/authoritative, I can't see how this is possible: even experts would find it a challenge to write Featured Articles on their subjects; any well-educated & curious person can write introductory essays, even if she/he is not an expert. And I've found introductory essays tend to age better & are much easier to keep up to date than lengthy, in-depth monographs. Which leads to this point: articles that serve as introductions aim to be short & concise. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we are, by definition an encyclopedia written in summary style: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Even the FA criteria, that begin with comprehensiveness, end with "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style" (WP:FACR), so there is clearly no contradiction. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No need to change WP:TOOBIG has been around for a long time, and has served us well as a rule of thumb. With regard to the usual arguments:
 * Most people won't read long pages. For which we have the summary in the lead. It isn't true either.
 * Encyclopaedias are supposed to be concise That was true 100 years ago, but we are WP:NOTPAPER, and our mission is "to collect and develop educational content" That's why we have orders of magnitude more material than any paper encyclopaedia.
 * Some people cannot load long pages Was true when people had 300 baud modems and 64K computers, but not today. In fact, the Wikipedia logo is 15K, so this is a concern, turn off the images!
 * In practice, we attempt to write articles that are comprehensive and authoritative. Some articles are more easily forked than others. We can split Dwight Eisenhower's military and political careers into separate articles, but is more difficult for John Glenn, whose three careers as aviator, astronaut and legislator overlapped. World War II is typical of many high profile articles: everyone wants it smaller, and everyone wants text on some favourite subject added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

bureaucrat access to manage copyviobot group
Hello all, a new access group was implemented by the Growth Team (copyviobot) which can be used by bots to add a special tag to the new pages feed for suspected copyright violations. See prior discussion regarding the group's creation here: Bots/Noticeboard and an active BRFA that would like to trial this feature here: Bots/Requests for approval/EranBot 3. I propose the following updates in support of this:
 * 1) Amending Bureaucrats to allow bureaucrats to issue and revoke this flag in the same manner as the bot flag
 * 2) Approve execution of T206731 to enable access for to   and   of the   group.
 * ✅ The developer team has done this already in T206731 - so barring a failure below this part is actually live and we are just looking at updating our internal policies. — xaosflux  Talk 18:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Amending the Bot_policy to include this as an available bot access, with such bots subject to the same requirements of other bots

Discuss

 * Support as proposer. — xaosflux  Talk 02:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Rschen7754 02:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this type of change needs community consensus but shouldn't be controversial. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:SNOW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per common sense. Natureium (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  03:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems ridiculous that we need another group to do this. But yeah sure, let 'crats hand it out once it's here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Um. Do we actually need a separate group here? The permission does not sound very critical to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * / I mostly understand why a new 'permission' was built, not sure why the developers didn't want to just use an existing 'group' though (such as 'bot') - I think they are just being very cautious. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per common sense. I'm glad "copyviobot" is starting to be clarified. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 12:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 14:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Echoing what my fellow editors said: Don't know why that's needed but obvious that it should be bundled with crat permissions. Regards So  Why  17:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — fr&thinsp;<sup style="color:grey;">+  09:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - sure, bots are approved by 'crats, that's par for the course. But why do we need a separate class of bots to detect copyvios and flag articles? Aren't there already bots that do this? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * there are some that make 'reports' (mostly off-wiki) - this new access will inject metadata to the wikidatabase, so that it can be used by components such as the new pages feed. I think the devs split this out since it is not being rolled out WMF wide at this time; I think if there is going to be a widespread rollout adding this new "permission" to the existing bot "group" may be the best. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new naming convention Naming conventions (Irish stations)
I've started a proposed new naming conventions for articles on railway stations in Ireland at Naming conventions (Irish stations). It's modeled after the other former conventions already established for Canada (WP:CANSTATION, Poland (WP:PLSTATION), the UK (WP:UKSTATION), and the U.S. (WP:USSTATION). It was written to follow the unwritten practice already in place as closely as possible. Comments and suggestions are welcome.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)