Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 51

Nobel Prize icons in infoboxes - templates and consistency
Should articles particularly with concern to the infobox follow the templates provided by wikipedia? It seems this lack of adherence to guidelines is ensuring a lack of consistency. A particular "goal" of mine has been to clarify the issue of placing small nobel peace prize icons below the name of recipients in infoboxes instead of under the Awards heading in the infobox. The addition of the icon should be considered VANDALISM. Claims of consistency amongst the nobel peace laureates should not be considered, as it is false, many recipients of the nobel peace prize do not have this icon placed in the inappropriate position-Someone111111 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is related to an ongoing dispute on Al Gore regarding whether or not to have an icon in his infobox for the Prize. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not just restricted to the Al Gore, but to other Nobel Peace Laureates. To ensure consistency across other infoboxes. Allowing prizes like these to be placed as icons under names instead of "Awards Won" may cause support for other prizes like the Academy awards to have separate icon under winners' names.Someone111111 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not vandalism, it is a content dispute. The same argument has taken place across multiple articles, including Martin Luther King and Jimmy Carter. Though I initially supported inclusion, I now believe (after discussion with another editor) that this could be a slippery slope. If one includes Nobel Laureates, how about the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Emmy Awards, or Purple Hearts? --Clubjuggle T / C 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is being discusses at Template talk:Nobel icon. Zaian (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Inline References In Infobox
Is there a policy/guideline regarding the use of inline references in an infobox? To see what I'm talking about (if it's not apparent) look at the King (pigeon) article. I mean it doesn't look bad to me but I want to try to conform to the general consensus on this point if I can. I haven't found any sort of style guideline regarding this particular usage so if anyone can point me to a guideline article, I would appreciate it.--Onorio (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen this done, but it often causes problems with formatting because the superscript pushes the line down and the bottom gets clipped. One question that I raised earlier that might be of note: if the material is also covered in the text of the article as well as the infobox, just cite it normally in the text and leave the infobox alone.  SDY (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. You raise an excellent point about putting the citation in the article as opposed to the infobox. --Onorio (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox should only replicate information elsewhere in the article, so I don't really see why you would need to cite something a second time there. Celarnor Talk to me  02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Navbox overproliferation?
I recently noticed that hundreds (probably a few thousand) of film articles display one of the templates in Category:American films by year navigational boxes. Each of these navboxes contains a total of ten links—one for each year in a decade—to a "List of American films of [Year]" article.

Is this useful or just template clutter? Note that virtually every film article contains, or should contain, a piped link to a "[Year] in film" article (e.g. 1957 in film), and it wouldn't be difficult to add a "see also" link to a single appropriate "List of American films of [Year]" article (instead of to the lists for an entire decade). I personally would prefer to avoid placing a navbox in an article unless that article is actually linked in the navbox (for instance, Glory (film) should contain Edward Zwick, since the template contains a link to the article about the film), but that's just me...

Thoughts? –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems better suited for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films unless you are suggesting to make a general guideline about placing a navbox in an article which is not linked in the navbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll raise the issue there. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't just a film issue. Lately someone has been adding templates to lighthouse articles that exactly duplicate the subcategories of Category:Lighthouses in the United States. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool down blocks
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy‎ regarding the possible removal from the blocking policy of the provision discouraging "cool down blocks". Nsk92 (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The list of 10 language versions shown on the initial page
Hello. Firstly please forgive me if I have not asked this at the most appropriate place, and feel free to move the question to the appropriate page if neccessary. Ok, you know the first page you see on wikipedia? Before the main page. It has the wikipedia logo surrounded by 10 different language versions of wikipedia. Now I had always assumed that the criteria for deciding which 10 versions surrounded the logo was number of articles. Hence in the last month or so the Russian version replaced the Swedish (i think) version. Well today I see that the Chinese language wikipedia has been added to this 'top ten', replacing the Dutch version (I think). Now, the Chinese version only has the 12th most articles. Then I thought perhaps the criteria for the 10 is number of users, but this cant be right as there are more Dutch users than Russian users. So can someone please explain what the criteria is for deciding which 10 language versions surround the logo?; and regardless of what the criteria is, do the current top 10 accurately meet this criteria? Why has the Chinese version just been added? Many thanks. Willy turner (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A poll was held last month on meta to decide which wikipedias should appear on that page. The poll can be found here -http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Top_Ten_Wikipedias/poll The decision was made that the ten wikipedias shown would be the ten most visited, instead of by article count. As a result the Chinese wikipedia has been added to replace the Dutch wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Well thats probably a good idea. Thanks. Willy turner (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Alter Template:reflist pending feasibility at WP:TFD
Template: Reflist is one of the most widely used templates on the site, but has a foundation built on sand... being implemented using proprietary technology. It turns out it slows down page loading and probably loads the server as well, and Brion Vibber is on record in the ''prior discussion of saying two column reference lists were a bad idea... that was all but ignored by the enthusiasts working the template.

Sense of duty, reading that involved me and I began to think of this post... Things have slowed down as far as I can tell the last few months, though I make no claim to causality to this... but if it's slowing page loading... it's also killing and using bandwidth and slowing everything down for all users... so for two columns, which appear differently on differing browsers and only show "right" on less than a third... it's just not worth it. NOW. So I suggest changing the template to see what happens going forward. (Cross outs, after a long evening off point) - Fra nkB 04:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion is at the bottom of Template talk:Reflist. --NE2 22:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As an update, it looks like the performance issue was a misinterpretation on my part in part taking Brion's comment on browser issues as a generalization into "performance issues". However, there is a lot of dissension on whether or not this community should allow two columns or not, which was the original topic I misconstrued. The current discussion begins just above this section and begins in earnest just below it. // Fra nkB 04:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

deletions
The desire to escape updating an article with new reference formats appears now to be so overwhelming that articles are being nominated for deletion for reasons which even minor edits could otherwise correct. It is the equivalent of arsonists being set loose in a forest. In fact, I know of one student from Beijing, where academic censorship is the rule, who has begun the practice of article burning here on the English Wikipedia site. Are there no precautions against this, such as making nomination for deletion at least as difficult as adding references which are inline? Mimus polyglottos (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect from the style and complaint that User:Mimus polyglottos is yet another sock puppet of User:Julie Dancer, who is concerned about the recent deletion at Articles for deletion/Optimal classification. If so, I believe you will be taken more seriously if you are up front and honest about what led you to your specific concern, and if you stick to a single identity; a polemical speech with a deceptive identity does not promote positive discussion. Dcoetzee 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My school has over 1,500 Wikipedia users and over 4,000 Wikipedia accounts. Why do you think this might be if having more than one user account is against Wikipedia rules? The reason is that students can point to all sorts of instances where the Wikipedia itself does not live up to its own rules, where articles are deleted on false pretenses, where users are likewise blocked. They think the Wikipedia is hypocritical and so they ask, "Hey, if the Wikipedia violates its own rules they must not be very important so why can't we?" I remind them of the Golden Rule but most of them want the Wikipedia to set the example. Many of them have now even started using each other's accounts to keep from being stalked by users like Wang and Tai and to maintain their privacy. I would like to argue with them on behalf of the Wikipedia but I am unfortunately not able at the moment to do so. Mimus polyglottos (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If this account isn't an alternate account of somebody else then you might want to reconsider the username. :-)  It does give a certain impression!  To address your original comment, if you feel a particular article was let down by a deletion process then you could speak to the closing administrator or look at Deletion review.  Deletion is reversible just like the rest of the wiki, it is just a bit more complicated to do so.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 13:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of a single account by multiple individuals is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and will cause the account to be blocked if discovered.  Corvus cornix  talk  17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My school has over 1,500 Wikipedia users and over 4,000 Wikipedia accounts. How exactly would you know that?  It certainly isn't the sort of thing that is publicly available via the Wikipedia website.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that its backwards... The number of users should be much greater than the number of accounts even if it doesn't count non-editing readers as users. Mr.Z-man 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think she is trying to say "everyone else around there abuses multiple accounts, so I will too". See also: peer pressure, bandwagon.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 08:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a sockpuppetry school? No wonder we have so many! Mr.Z-man 19:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories and citations
Hi, I have a question regarding categories. When articles are added to categories, does it need to explicitly say that "Article Topic is X" (with this assertion sourced as well) in the actual article before it can be added to "Category:X"? Deamon138 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It should, because something not important enough to the subject to even be mentioned in its article clearly isn't important enough to that subject to categorize it. Postdlf (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is especially true for BLPs, but there is often resistance to that among some of the people who maintain those categories. Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, but if the applicability of the category is contended, this is a good way to settle it. Dcoetzee 22:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks everyone for the input. Deamon138 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda films
I feel the category propaganda films and its subcategories are not being used in a consistent way, and this inconsistency gives the appearance of bias. See the discussion at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I think that clear criteria for inclusion would help editors be more consistent, so I've put up a proposal here. I also suspect that my concerns about the usage of this category may apply to other potentially controversial categories as well. Is there a general policy regarding the use of controversial categories to label articles beyond the remarks found at WP:CAT?

--skeptical scientist (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like we have a built-in problem with a pejorative category here. Even if we ignore the clause requiring misleading tactics and false information, we still have an inherently pejorative label, "propaganda".  Seems to me that the only real solution would be limiting the pejorative cat to items where there is little or no real dispute (Triumph of the Will, classic war propaganda films, etc.) and creating a more neutral cat, like "political films" or something more like that, for anything where there is likely to be contention.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 11:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, that said...I am a strong supporter of allowing extra leeway to those who do cat work. First, because cat work is incredibly dull, and anyone seriously involved in it should be be given some space :D  But more importantly, cats are one of the most underdeveloped and promising features of the encyclopedia - nowhere near as developed as the articles they deal with.  I think cats need to be given some time and room to develop without being strictly brought into line with policy at every step. Hm.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 12:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New essay about speedy deletion/notability
Greetings, everyone. I am a longtime contributor, but I have never posted at the Village pump before. I just wrote a new essay entitled "Not all business articles are spam", and I am eager to hear your opinions on it. I welcome all constructive criticism, even if you vehemently disagree with me. Leave your messages on the essay's talk page, or on my talk page, if you prefer. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the essay and will go you a step further here. Notability alone should be our basis for keeping or deleting articles.  Spam?  Puff piece?  Doesn't matter.  For instance, I found a copyvio/puff-piece article on UTEX Industries while watching Special:Newpages, and through a quick bit of research, established the company as obviously notable and well-documented.  I took apart the article and rebuilt it as a sourced and neutral semi-stub - far from perfect, but better than nothing.  We have to stop deleting articles because we're too lazy to improve them.  Wikipedia's coverage of companies is absolutely terrible for this reason: most mid-level company articles start as corporate puff, so they get deleted...leaving nothing in their place.  Thousands of notable companies are completely uncovered on Wikipedia because of our immediatist obsessions.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Let's not delete copyvios, let's just wait for "somebody" (you?) to fix them.  That's not a realistic situation.   Corvus cornix  talk  19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To Mr. IP: There's a rough correlation, in my opinion, between demand for articles by our readers and creation of articles by editors&mdash;new editors fill the gaps in our coverage when they see article that they feel should exist.  I could speculate about why we don't have more non-COI editors creating articles about companies (maybe they'd rather spend their leisure time on articles about plants or birds or geography or pop stars or rock bands or or or), but the reality is that we see a ton of corporate puff pieces that should be spam-deleted.  And that the mainstream media provide a lot of fairly neutral coverage about all publicly traded companies, which maybe fills some of our potential role here.


 * None of that is to say that your work taking apart puff pieces and making neutral articles isn't useful&mdash;it is! It's just that the volume of spam is what it is, and the way the system is set up now is that we delete spam articles very soon after creation so that we don't get flooded with it. Darkspots (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability - Political Parties
Following talk on my user page (follow the "pp" link) I have moved to Notability (political parties) a discussion on what appears to be one of the last remaining holes in the Wikipedia notability canon. I trust we can work together to help form this policy for the good of the project. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, no complaints. The issues seem most serious with the "unless that registration was difficult to obtain" portion of the Registration Insufficiency Clause - seems like the loophole through which all NN parties would get squeezed.  I think the 2 year rule could be tightened through a very simple extension to 3 years, but is otherwise a good thing to have in there, because it allows the inclusion of unsuccessful but legitimate "statement" parties.  In general, I can't think of any genuinely notable parties which would be excluded under these guidelines, so I can get behind this.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm interesting idea! My question is: surely if a party stood in an election (never mind how many votes it got) wouldn't that meet notability requirements? Of course, there might be some parties that have never stood in an election but might still be notable for some reason (perhaps they get formed by a famous person and generate a lot of publicity etc), so a separate criteria would have to be made for that. Deamon138 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, there is a surprisingly large number of non-notable parties out there. As a hypothetical example, a small party with a single issue forms before an election and puts forward 1 candidate for a low-importance election. They don't do well in the election and fade into obscurity. The only sources that mention the party say "The Obscure Party stood in the 2008 election but were not elected." If there are no other sources available, would the party be notable? Road Wizard (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The election results in themselves would be considered a primary source and are a shaky ground for notability. Self-promotion is also obviously out.  It all comes back to reliable sources, some of which do comment on the participation of minor parties, particularly ones that are either silly (e.g. Front Deutscher Äpfel or otherwise of interest (e.g. Communist Party USA).  SDY (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, but it was really a rhetorical question. ^_~ Road Wizard (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol at the FDA! Still, I meant if it followed WP:N by being in secondary sources and has been in an election that would be notable enough. Otherwise if the creators of this new page just want the parties to be described by a secondary source, then I don't get the problem: that was already the case without the new page wasn't it? Deamon138 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of Free
See Talk:Main_Page.

I have written a page that explains what does the word "free" mean in "The Free Encyclopedia" and what it does not mean. I hope that this page is correct and useful and i think that the right thing is to move it to the Wikipedia namespace and to put a link to it from the main page.

The page i wrote is here: User:Amire80/The Free Encyclopedia.

Your input is welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing in there is inaccurate as regards policy, but I think we should be emphasizing open editing, not gradually de-emphasizing it.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 12:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all for open editing - as long as it doesn't contradict core content policies. I tried my best to make this page not sound negative and discouraging, and you are welcome to improve it further. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess my main gripe is this header: "Free Encyclopedia" does not mean "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't think it adequately describes what follows.  It implies that certain people cannot (or should not) be able to edit at all, when the section itself is mostly about ways of editing that we discourage.  It's true that certain editors do manage to get themselves blocked or banned, but they've really got to work at it!  I would have changed this, but it's a section header, and I didn't want to mess with that. In general, I think the essay is phrased a bit too negatively.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 14:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I urge you, please, mess with it! :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales has been marked as a policy
has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And now is no longer a policy.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this bot. It makes sure nothing sneaks in. Chillum  19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Global bot policy
The global bot policy at meta has recently been finalised, and en.wiki is required to 'opt in' to any associated global rights. All comers are welcome to participate in the discussion at WT:Bot policy. Happy‑melon 21:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding clean-up/etc. templates to an article without any information!
Hi. This is something that annoys me quite a bit: people adding clean-up and similar templates to tag an article for improvement WITHOUT making any mention of what they feel needs to be changed to actually improve it. I'm not even saying they should have to edit the article themselves, but, if the people editing the article didn't see what they saw as a flaw, not clarifying it isn't helpful at all. So I would like to propose that any clean-up/neutrality/whatever templates should only be added if the contributor posts exactly what points in the article should be changed (talk page works). Otherwise, the template cannot be added to the article. It's not helpful, useful, and all people seem to do is remove it without changing anything because they simply don't see what needs to be changed, and the person who added the template couldn't be bothered to tell them. Please discuss/take this into consideration. A speck of dust on Wikipedia, 0cm (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If other people can't tell what the problem is, there probably isn't a problem. However in most cases, the reason for the tag is quite obvious and the tag should provide helpful links explaining why there's a problem and how to fix it. If someone tags a completely unformatted article with wikify, he shouldn't have to go to the talk page just to say that the article is completely unformatted. Similarly, things like uncategorized and orphan make it plainly obvious what the problem is. Mr.Z-man 15:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "However in most cases, the reason for the tag is quite obvious and the tag should provide helpful links explaining why there's a problem and how to fix it" -- but sometimes it isn't. If someone thinks there is a problem with an article they should have to explain what the problem is. Otherwise, what's the point? Turning this into a guessing game? Then it gets to a point where you have people adding the template, others removing it, and others putting it back, without any effort to try and explain why they've added it or trying to edit the article themselves... I think a mandatory explanation would help solve the problem. A speck of dust on Wikipedia, 0cm (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Then it gets to a point where you have people adding the template, others removing it, and others putting it back, without any effort to try and explain why they've added it or trying to edit the article themselves..." There's your problem. IMO, Mr.Z-man is right in that some templates should be obvious. When someone removes a template without fixing it, they really should start a talk page section and/or ask the person who added it on their talk page. If someone wants to re-add it then, they definitely need to start a talk page section because at that point there is obviously discussion that needs to go on. There is a bit of an exception for WP:TE on either side, although a discussion wouldn't hurt there either. Anomie⚔ 13:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales pitch!
I've spent most of the last month helping out in the commons in part with images categorization that have been BOT transfered over there and horribly auto-categorized by Magnus's CommonsHelper Bot. This I do once in a while as I helped set up the maps category schema over there and it needs maintenance now and then. But this is the first I've worked at length there after Bot moving of images became possible, so its really sensitized me better to the overburden all the wiki's place on a very few image specialists editors (whom don't get enough credit!!! Kudos gang! My sympathies are with you and for what it's worth my appreciation)
 * 1) So I'd like to urge any editor comfortable with our category system to lend a hand over there regularly, say once a week for an hour or two, as there are far fewer editors and the BOT causes a lot of issues.
 * 2) Alternatively, contribute HERE by taking some time to move images which are already tagged, or which should obviously be there (And satisfy international PD requirements or GFDL) and edit after it's there for correct categories in particular.

Unfortunately the BOT, with various click box selections is all too prone to add things to MAIN CATEGORIES that are already tagged {&#123;categorize&#125;} (i.e. inequivalent to our catdiffuse), and so should be in subcategories.

Hence, each transfered image 'needs at least one human intervention edit', the mininum being "to clear the autotag" added for the BOT transfers should the BOT by some special miracle have selected good Categories, so if you are trust worthy and have a modicum of skill getting around the categories, pitch in. (The search dropdowns in the search window make finding likely categories a whole lot easier now than they were... and many of our categories here have commoncats/Commons cat links to the corresponding commons even if names differ slightly, so it's not hard to find 3-4 categories that fit down the tree... just some judgment... and that the bot doesn't have!
 * 1) I'll even add this tip. Before using the bot, copy and paste the categories it already has, and turn them into wikilinks like:   so the bot keeps them as Annotations... then tell the BOT to NOT categorize the page... Saves a lot of deleted inappropriate categories!
 * 2) Since the "comment categories backlink" are there to be followed, you can reconstruct categories very quickly.
 * 3) At that point I usually just paste in the same group and take out the "W:" to see what ones have exact matches... (Many will)
 * 4) or are redlinks (so I can follow my "W:" version to wikipedia and usually get the right name...
 * 5) [CAUTION... follow each blue link and check for category redirects!]
 * 6) Commons image categories have some expanded scope too, but if you get 3-4 cats on it and clear the bot tags, that's one hell of lot of improvement over letting them land in main categories.
 * 7) I prefer to just inline comment out the bot tagging when clearing it... so others visiting later can see it in the history, since it starts the editable content. Others just delete it.

Thanks // Fra nkB 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the bot needs an upgrade. Off the top I can see 2 approaches: if the problems are simple, just fix the bot; if they are inherently complex, modify the process and split the bot into 2: (a) transfer and build temp list of images to be be reviewed; (b) review stage that presents a human user with items from the temp list, modifies categories, etc. as instructed by the user, and removes completed items from the temp list - with an option for the user to skip items he / she can't easily resolve. -- Philcha (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I've already contacted the originator and suggested technical upgrades, including offering to generate a list of cat pages that should not be used as being main nodes. Here we already have at least one "pre-vetted" category (and the image specialists can no doubt add others that are problematic) As to the procedure, the thing is effectively already split...    A) get the images to the commons by any means, as soon as possible     B) the bot transfered tag being added that needs cleared.    C) THE REALITY which intrudes rudely... IS THIS:


 * There are less than 100 editors regularly contributing on the commons overall, and most of those are image generation geeks (not a criticism) that are there mostly to expand the library of usable illustrations, and maps for geopolitical articles, or other such teaching illustrations. Many of those are over-focused (my opinion) on SVG conversion of suitable jpg, png illustrations vice the trudging progress of re-categorizing and filing. That means there are too darn few people to shuffle things from all the 100+ language wiki's into the right places. Things with Legends in German or Legends in Spanish, French... Italian, Greek, Russian, Arabic... (name any language you like) end up in general categories, and so forth. Sometimes there is little or no clue as to which language is annotating something, which is another issue of a different magnitude.


 * In sum, it's a foundation project and this is the biggest foundation project and we need all focus on helping the overall educational causes... for we have all implicitly really agreed the overall job is worth it... this is just and extension of that thought. Images in a common repository that can be hotlinked to anywhere in the world is and was meant to unburden the wikipedias and wikibooks and wikisources in all languages... we all speak (I hope!) AT LEAST ONE... so benefit. I'm just saying a little more explicit support is also needed.


 * Another big need over there as I understand it is people with multilingual skills... just annotating images or adding this language's or that language's tagging links to a translated version of a template and such pages needs hands working and some regular time donation. I'm not the least multilingual any more... wish I were. Those days, alas, were never strong and are thirty-five years back for me. At best I can just guess at a few words here and there. Just those who have rudimentary Japanese-English, German-English, French-English, Chinese-English, Spanish-English and Italian-English or Portuguese-English would be a great start. There are loads of images which just need three or four words or a sentence line translated going one way or anther. Every image should have at least one link to an enclopedia main topic page of some category, IMHO,... Then at the least someone can follow the interwiki's back to a parallel category or article here, or if you add one there, they can follow to their article via an interwiki here.    (The other thing that helps is a guess, or image use link, frequently will give a clue, and even a translation line in our pages that can be taken there and pasted in... all hand editing, alas! Common sense, but there is need. What exactly is priority translator needs, I don't know. Make inquiries on translation backlogs to commons:User talk:Rocket000 who will be glad to direct such help, I'm sure.


 * Bottom line, a hundred or a few hundred editors can't be expected to be do it all themselves. (The number estimate I saw was '70', so figure from that!) // Fra nkB 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dutch wiki removed from mainpage
I am trying to find out why Dutch/Nederlands was removed from the mainpage even though it is the seventh largest and larger then Portuguese, Spanish, Chineese and Russian which are included. I have failed in finding any information on why this was changed, if anyone could tell me or point me in the right direction I would be most greatfull. --SelfQ (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This question was also asked and answered further up this page at Village pump (policy). Davewild (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Namespace for featured content pages
[relocated to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), where I meant to put it in the first place]  —David Levy 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of baseball players being discussed...
Quick note to let folks know that a discussion is underway about finally nailing down a notability guideline for baseball players, esp. minor leaguers. See WT:MLB —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Privacy of the name of an article subject's spouse
There is an on-going discussion at WT:BLP. It has only drawn three people to comment. It is held there that:

The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger
 * The name of a spouse is not to be entered into the subjects biographical article per WP:BLP unless the spouse has their own article (i.e. independent notability), and extends the exclusion even in the case where the subject has publicly identified their spouse by name. The relevant quote:

Since we have thousands of non-notable spouse names in the Wikipedia, how do you reconcile the contents of the Wikipedia with this interpretation of the policy by two editors? patsw (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated over there, all legal spouses are a matter of public record (marriage documents), and all spouses are notable to a notable person's biography, so there cannot be any privacy concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet there are privacy concerns. I disagree that "all spouses are notable to a notable person's biography" is a given. Just because some things are black-and-white doesn't mean that everything is black-and-white.  Work with the other editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on the relevant privacy concern, presuming that no content about the spouse is given in the article aside from their name and the fact that they are married? Postdlf (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but all public records are own by the public, and you cannot claim privacy when everyone has legal access to the records. Thats the law in the United States, at least. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or even looking at it within the wording of the BLP policy: a spouse is certainly "directly involved in an article's topic." Contrast with, for example, the maid who found Heath Ledger's body; she was originally identified in zealous initial edits, but this was later removed because in that case it really doesn't matter who she was. Postdlf (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about the law, we're talking about WP policy and guidelines. Patsw already mentioned the relevant one: WP:BLP, with my comments: "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event [such as marriage]. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context [whether the omission of a spouse is significant is the part that's not black-and-white]." -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. That means a spouse's name is of course relevant, notable, and not against any policy. Unless, that spouse is a secret witness in a court case, and has had their name removed from all public records. Thank you for finally resolving this JHunter, with the policy right there there's no need to continue to argue, imho. Beam 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A "single event" is a strange way to characterize a marriage, as if their only connection to the spouse is through participation in a wedding. A spouse has a substantive, direct relationship with an article's topic; see my previous comment directly above yours.  Postdlf (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Person x is married to person y and has two children, a and b" is a relevant, useful and notable part of the biography on person x.  I do not see any BLP concern here.  Not for a simple name. Resolute 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "We're not talking about the law, we're talking about WP policy and guidelines." Actually, the guidelines are there only to handle legal complaints. These complaints go to OTRS. No spouse can complain about their name being mentioned, because they would have no legal grounds to sue. Thus, there cannot be a BLP problem. If you would like, I can get some of the OTRS guys in here to discuss. They will just repeat exactly what I have stated above. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It says "must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies", not "must adhere strictly only to all applicable laws in the United States." Of course they can complain. They could even sue, whether or not they have legal grounds to win. I am not saying there is a BLP problem, but I disagree that there cannot be one. But that's just my viewpoint; I know there are others; what I'd like is for you to realize that there are viewpoints other than your own as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be an asshole, but there truly cannot be one. Beam 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Marriage is a matter of public record, entered into legal records available to the public, and often announced in newspapers at the time. I think the argument that "Person x is married to person y and has two children a and b" is not an important part of a biography ridiculous. Pick up a few biographies (read: real biographies, not the BLP-ridden watered-down drivel we have here and I pretty much guarantee that you'll find at least that information, if not more regarding that particular aspect of the subject's life. Celarnor Talk to me  17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note - I think there is enough consensus on the topic to propose the explicit language that the names of spouses, as being from legally public records, cannot be held as a BLP violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that including a spouse is a BLP violation, but we should use common sense. Including the name of a spouse of a public individual is clearly acceptable.  Including details about the family of a person who is notable, but not a public persona, I think at least deserves some level of scrutiny, and certainly should not be explicity accepted.  See WP:NPF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "legally public" is enough to overturn the courtesy aspect of this guideline. There is an awful lot of information which is legally public, but inappropriate to include in an article about a living person. It seems to me that if an article does not exist about a spouse, then they are not notable in their own right, and that seems like a logical place to draw a line of courtesy.  Public records include addresses and phone numbers and the locations and values of real estate owned, too. SlackerMom (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "curtousey aspect". There is the possibility of lawsuit or not. Public documents cannot be held as private. That is how the law works. Thus, there is no BLP concern, because there is nothing that could go to OTRS. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is not only aabout lawsuits and it is wildly incorrect to characterize it as such. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Chunky, but the wording at the top ("Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially") sure proves to the contrary. This has always been a legal matter, and that is why OTRS is involved with any serious complaints. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there are legal aspects. But you must be deliberately turning a blind eye to the rest of the policy if you believe that's all it is about.  Read the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted.  Or any of the sections that indicate that there are legal and ethical considerations for BLP articles.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chunky, all problems that deal with the actual subjects need to conform with the law. Ethic concerns deal with the law and with Wiki policies. There is no policy that verifies what you state. Experience with these matters would show that all that matters in the end is if OTRS allow something, and as it clearly says, if it conforms to the law and is not controversial material, then it is acceptable according to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment A key intent of WP:IAR is not to produce anarchy, but to insure that policies and rules are not interpreted more broadly than necessary to accomplish Wikipedia's purposes. As has been pointed out, the two key concerns of WP:BLP are legal concerns and human dignity concerns. As has been pointed out, there is no legal concern, spousal status is a matter of public record and repute. Moreover, I don't see a consensus that there is a human dignity concern. I understand that marriage is a difficult issue in contemporary society and there are many conceptions of its nature. Some see it as an open and public undertaking inherently involving society, others as a purely private matter. I don't believe Wikipedia rules are a good place to get embroiled into these types of disputes. It seems to me that sufficiently few people would feel embarassed to be publicly mentioned as married to someone notable that those who do could best be handled on a case-by-case basis. Mentioning spouses has traditionally been a part of biographies. For these reasons, I think WP:IAR counsels interpreting the privacy policy narrowly here and permitting the traditional practice to continue. WP:IAR requires that we take Wikipedia's purposes into account in deciding these matters. Simply quoting a policy and making a decision based on the dictionary definition is exactly the sort of thing that WP:IAR was intended to prevent. Making a decision this way is forbidden by policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If a subject's spouse or fiance or lover or whatever is referred to more than once in the subject's article the name should probably be included as a practical matter. Repeating "so-and-so's husband" or "so and so's wife" several times in lieu of their name makes for some awkward prose. — CharlotteWebb 18:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP's policy on the privacy on family members is being cited as an editing empowerment to change:
 * John Smith is married to Mary Jones to John Smith is married. (or the appearance of Mary Jones in an infobox)
 * John Smith said he intends to marry Mary Jones to John Smith said he intends to be married.
 * John Smith is divorced from Mary Jones to John Smith is divorced.

First, is this even a correct interpretation of WP:BLP, and if it is the correct interpretation then does it need to be changed? patsw (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, it is not a correct reading - "family member" is supposed to be cousin, uncle, aunt, etc. i.e. people not directly related to the individual for notability concerns. Marrying a person and having children is directly related to the notability of the person. Being born by two parents is directly related to the notability of the person. Unless the cousins, uncles, aunts, etc, played a direct part in the individual life, then they aren't notable enough to be mentioned. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? How is being born to two parents directly related to the notability of a person?  I mean, it could be, if they had notable parents or there was something about their upbringing that contributed to their notability.  But certainly, it doesn't usually directly relate to their notability.  If someone becomes notable because of the papers they've written, or something they've invented, their parentage is pretty much irrelevant to their notability -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are serious as to suggest that parents are not a notable part of an individual's life, then I am quite confused as to how you could come to such a conclusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm asserting. When considering WP:NPF, we are urged to only write about that which makes the subject notable. That is, why they have an article in the first place. Everybody (or almost everybody) has parents. That does not make them notable. That is not why they have an article. Therefore, unless there's something particularly interesting or noteworthy about a non-public person's family, there's no reason to include it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chunky, if you honestly think that the people who were the reason for you existing are not a notable part of your life, then please, feel free to think that. However, that is not true for Wikipedia, as the basis of being alive is clearly the most notable aspect of someone's life. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're important to me. But I don't put them in my CV or on my company's Bio of me because they are not relevant to my career. I really wonder, do you understand notability as it's used here on WIkipedia? It doesn't mean what's important to the subject. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chunky, having a time when you are born and who you are born to is important to all biographical subjects. You do not appear out of no where. Now, your questioning of my understanding of notability, with my extensive record of dealing with BLP subjects and high quality articles is extremely incivil, and it makes me wonder why you are blatantly defying biography standards and resorting to personal attacks right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, personal attacks? Whatever.  If you prefer, I'll say that you're applying the term notability in an extremely novel way for Wikipedia.  There are a lot of things that are biographically relevant (birthdates, for example) which are not necessarily appropriate for inclusion in an WP:NPF.  In fact, birthdates are explicitly addressed by WP:BLP as something that should be excluded from articles about non-public individuals, despite being biographically relevant.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is obviously something you can raise in a discussion on each talk page of each article for which you're suggesting that such information should be removed. Postdlf (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. This is an issue that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think it is a novel way, why else would consensus be against you, and the common way of interpretation is against you. Furthermore, most biographical articles include birth dates, and these dates have been upheld on the BLP noticeboard whenever they've appeared. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be a claim to notability to be in the article. It just has to be biographically relevant.  Look in a biography on Stalin; I have one right here on my desk.  Guess what the first 36 pages are about?  Really, are you seriously advocating that a person's parents aren't biographically relevant?  Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm claiming that per our policy at WP:NPF, it's not an aspect that we cover here on Wikipedia. Have you read this? -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not everyone falls under marginal notability. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I never said that they did.  I only said that for those people who are private individuals and fall under WP:NPF, we should follow that policy.  And under that policy family would usually be left out. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your throwing around of the imaginary term "private individuals" is troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, before you say something - in this case, children and spouses cannot be "private" as per what the BLP says - "who are not directly involved in an article's topic". By definition, children and spouses are directly involved in a biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm using the term to describe people who aren't public individuals. If you have a preferred term to descibe them, I'd be happy to use it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, the clause does not agree with you, thus you are using the term improperly. That policy deals only with people not directly related to the topic, or in topics dealing with incidents in which they did not play a central role, or if they did, their identity was protected by court order. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read WP:NPF again as it specifically refers to the subject of the article. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which part "specifically"? "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability" Age, birth, marriage, and children, are relevant to their notability. This is supposed to be against things like: favorite color; favorite restaurants; music choice; etc; etc. If you followed the clause, you will see the intent of this paragraph: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." i.e. don't break the law by having potentially scandalous information about personal preference, or other such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep changing the topic. First you object to the term "private individuals," then you claim that the policy doesn't apply to the subject of the article, now you're talking about what's relevant to notability and what isn't.  Each time I answer one of your claims, you respond by talking about something compeltely different.  If you'd stay on topic for one second, maybe we'd get somewhere.  I've already discussed elsewhere in this thread why those things are not relevant to notability.  I mean, be honest.  If I ask you why someone is notable, is your answer going to include, "Well, they had two non-notable parents, they married someone non-notable and had two non-notable kids?"  I dont' disagree that this information is relevant to their biography, but it's not relevant to their notability.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do not like how your concerns are addressed as you make them, please do not accuse me of "changing the topic". Your personal POV does not make an argument. As said below, the parents and children don't have their own page unless they are notable. However, that is important information to the topic. As I already proved, one cannot exist without parents. Furthermore, a marriage and birth of children are extremely important moments in a person's life. Therefore, there is no legitimate excuse for your consistent recourse to the same repetitive argument when it only shows a misinterpretation of a policy that is never treated in the way that you claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could also prove that one cannot exist without consuming and excreting, although I'm sure I don't need examples of each included in every person's Wikipedia article. Details of marriage and procreation may or may not be important to encyclopedic coverage of an individual, no matter how important they may (or may not) be to the person covered. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that, pursuant to WP:NPF, for individuals who are not public figures, we should restrict the information in their article to that which is directly relevant to their notability? -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If an individual has a page, then they are a "public" figure. Thus, all matters that are necessary to their biography should be included. This includes things like parents, education, spouses, children, etc. Now, for pages that aren't biographies, then the information should be restricted unless it is directly part of the topic. That is standard inclusion policy, i.e. only things that matter are in. Now, for court records that might not have a person's name based on sealed records, then there wouldn't be any revelation, unless, somehow, the subject was notability "outed" as such, and then carried in third party reliable sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, slow down. If you read the first sentence of WP:NPF, it clearly states that it is about biographies. Do you disagree with this? (I'm trying to break this down to very specific issues so we don't have these big rambling arguments that are difficult to address all at once.) -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand Ottava Rima's interpretation, if the CEO of a company is mentioned only in that company's article, we would not go into that CEO's family life unless it pertained to why the CEO was mentioned in that article. If the CEO had his own article, however, then his family would be relevant biographical material.  Correct?  Postdlf (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about him, but that is exactly my interpretation of it. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As is mine. This conforms with Privacy of names BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also presume that in most cases we would not be digging through county court records to fill in the blanks of even a stand-alone article's family relationships. We would only have that information if it were already elsewhere disseminated in secondary sources.  Postdlf (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but as I ask above, WP:NPF, specifically says that it is about biographies of people who are not well known, not about people who are not well known who appear in other articles. I'm trying to get a baseline on what we agree on and what we do not.  So, do you guys agree that WP:NPF is about biographies of people who are not well known (i.e., not public figures)?  -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If by "biographies" you mean stand-alone articles on individuals who are sufficiently notable to merit their own article, then I suppose I don't know what "not well known" means. It's all rather vague, and likely to devolve into arguments regarding every "biography" subject.  So I find it more productive to start from the pragmatic end of what any of this would mean in practice.  Postdlf (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It means a person who is not a public figure. Notability on Wikipedia and the legal definition of public figure are very different.  You can't just start with the conclusion you want and then work back to say that the policies say what you want them to.  We need to start with the policies we have and follow them to the logical conclusion.  It seems like you're saying that we should ignore this policy because it doesn't conform to what you want to do.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this element of the policy was intended to mean, or should mean. I'm saying we can't figure that out without addressing what the practical effect is of any given interpretation, what the current practice is, and what would make the best encyclopedia.  If it proves unworkable, or to have consequences that no one wants, then it should be changed.  Postdlf (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the problem that most BLP articles do not reference the spouse/children? Either add or remove the statement. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia policy is clear - only controversial material should be removed, and I doubt that the common situation would have argument over the name of the spouse and children. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP has no statement to the effect that being married to a notable makes one notable. The absence of such a statement is taken to mean by some editors that the name ought to be deleted as a matter of privacy.  I offered that if this is indeed the correct application of WP:BLP there should be a non-notable spouse name deletion bot running against thousands of biographical pages of notable people with non-notable spouses. (I am avoiding the issue of parents/children, that can be considered separately.) patsw (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Beam 19:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to weigh in here and say any reference to the law in this context is completely mistaken. "It is legal, therefore it can go in the article" is not a valid argument.  As it turns out, I think that barring some unusual circumstance, we should include spouse names in articles for famous people, and maybe or maybe not in other cases.  (Many people with Wikipedia entries are not particularly famous people.)  But that's because it is the right thing to do from an encyclopedic and ethical perspective, not because "they are in legal documents".  It is absolutely not the case that privacy (in our sense, referring to sound ethical editorial judgment) is not an issue whenever something is in a legal document or available somewhere on the web.  There are many valid reasons to exclude information which is found in other places on the web.


 * To repeat, just in case anyone wonders where I stand on the issue under discussion here. My saying that arguments about the law are irrelevant is not to say that I disagree with the conclusion.  I am just saying that the argument is irrelevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - the legal part (in the above discussion) dealt with BLP going to OTRS, as opposed to talk page consensus for inclusion of an item or not (i.e. possible legal invasions of privacy, defamation, whatever you want to throw out there). The argument is basically made in reverse, i.e., if this wasn't a matter of public record, would this be allowed? Then the answer would be no, unless there was good reason to include it (i.e. the information would automatically be deemed private). I hope this isn't that confusing (as the way I phrase it seems a little confusing to myself and I had to work it out to make sure), but it is mostly setting the boundary as to what we definitely can't do, and work back from there. Ethics are debatable, the law.... well, not so much. :) By the way, are there any statistics or ball park estimates for how many complaints OTRS would get on the inclusion of spouses? I'm sure it would help to see if there is an actual problem or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, are you now retracting the statements made above such as "There is no "curtousey aspect". There is the possibility of lawsuit or not." and "if it conforms to the law and is not controversial material, then it is acceptable according to BLP." with regard to our BLP policy? It would nice to put at least one of these various arguments to bed.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I agree with what Jimbo says about the issue (the ethical, not the legal parts), which would show that there is no courteousness in regards to spouses. I am just explaining why I focused on legal as the ultimate test in regards to a BLP issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so Arbitrary Section Break
The bottom line is, in a Biographical article on a living person, a wife and children are notable for the purposes of that article, within that article. Not notable enough for their article or by WP standards, but they are "notable" enough, by definition of their relation, to be stated and named in that article. I'm having trouble seeing the reasoning as to why people disagree. Beam 19:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree per WP:NPF. While I would agree that such information would be appropriate the majority of the time, I strongly object to including explicit language that it is always appropriate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I disagree with adding specific language either way, and that a case-by-case analysis is the way to go. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NPF isn't applicable per below. Beam 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand what that means. I agree that WP:NPF applies to the subject of the article.  I don't see how that changes my position at all.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above. While the subject's family may not be notable enough for inclusion in the project outside of that article, they're obviously biographically relevant, and gutting biographies because of arbitrary ideas of notability is a disservice to our readers, who are interested in information, not in an encyclopedia that contains a single sentence pertaining to the notability of the subject.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just plain wrong per existing policy. Per WP:NPF, there are many times when the spouse, children and parents do not merit mention in a biographical article at all, or may merit only mention of their existence.  To understand the policy correctly, such relatives only merit mention if their existence is relevant to why the subject merits an article.  Examples of such relevance could be working in the same field (politician as a parent of a politician) or known to be part of why the individual is in the field they are in (wealthy ancestors who left large amounts of wealth to a known philanthropist).  The proper decision making will not include any bright line rules; editors should be using editorial judgment strongly influenced and guided by what reliable, independent and secondary sources have previously published.  GRBerry 19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that editors assert there already is a bright line rule in place in WP:BLP: a presumption of privacy which excludes the name of a spouse (other than a spouse who has their own biographical article (what I have been calling a notability test)). 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stop using "notable" as the word for anything other than "deserving of an article." That's what's causing the equivocation of 1) what subjects merit their own articles with 2) what information pertaining to an article's subject merits mention or coverage within that article. Two completely different things. Postdlf (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I explained it as such. :D Beam 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the terms of WP:NPF specifically says that it covers only the subjects of "entries", which means people who have an article about them. That means it doesn't cover every mention in some other article. In general, the whole concept of notability only addresses whether or not an article should appear on a subject. Topics that are relevant to notable subjects but don't deserve their own article appear all the time. No-one could write an encyclopia that would be of any value if every person, place, or thing, mentioned in any sentence anywhere had to be independently deserving of its own article. WP:NPF just doesn't apply to people who aren't the subjects of articles. WP:BLP, applies across the board, but WP:NPF applies only to article subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I take that as an agree with the above? Just to make this more of an non-binding straw poll to see where people stand (but not a vote on the issue). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My proposed change to WP:BLP from WT:BLP is limited only to spouse and only to the name:

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name. patsw (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. A biography is an article about a person.  A persons family is important information wrt that individual. Resolute 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)`
 * Agree A person's family is very relevant and notable to a biography about a person as long as its sourced. -Djsasso (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, per my use of common sense. If a person is notable enough for an article, it makes not one bit of sense not to mention the fact that the person is married, and who they are married to as well. That doesn't mean the spouse merits a stand-alone article, but they are certainly notable in the context of the subject of that article, and only in that context. S. Dean Jameson 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. A spouse is only worth mentioning if the spouse is widely known, or if the spouse contributed greatly to whatever made the person notable, or if the wedding itself was notable.  There are no small number of notable people who maintain active private lives, and publishing a spouse's name can cause difficulty in that private life.  The text as it is written above is not acceptable at all. Bastique demandez 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (to Jhunter below, as well, through multiple ECs)So the fact that a marriage is a matter of public record, and can be discovered by anyone at any time makes no difference to you? I seriously don't understand what the major problem is here. Are we so caught up in our rules and process lawyering that we can't see the forest for the trees? How is it an invasion of privacy to publish something that's a matter of public record? Obama's kids don't have articles, and they're not central to his candidacy or ascent as a politician, but both girls' names are widely published on this project. It's just common sense here, Bastique, as I said before. A matter of public record is not a BLP violation. It's really as simple as that. S. Dean Jameson 22:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have less problem with the observation that public information is publicly available. The claim I disagree with is that public information on spouses and/or children automatically merits inclusion in a Wikipedia biographical article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (@Dean) With all due respect, matters of public record, like weddings and children, are entirely documented because they happen. It's still using primary sources, and generally invasive of privacy of the individual.  there's a great difference between being public record and publicised.  Also, the use of a presidential candidate is a bad example, because it is the requirement of the First Family to sacrifice privacy.  Many notable persons don't bring their families into their careers. Bastique demandez 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Blanket statement would not always be true. Some spouses and children may (encyclopedically) merit inclusion; other may not.  -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wordsmithing and content issues aside, these types of highly-specific details don't belogn in policy pages, otherwise they'd quickly get overwhelmed. Suggest an examples page like WP:Reliable source examples. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with broad statements like this. Sure the husband/wife of a head of state or a movie star is likely important enough and mentioned in enough secondary sources for inclusion, but if we have to start digging through primary sources (marriage records, etc) to find this information, it probbaly isn't at all relevant. There's plenty of information that can be pulled from public records that we don't include, but that doesn't mean we should. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 22:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the disagrees. Beam 22:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are those counted? Then I disagree with the disagree with the disagrees. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with <BIG>you</BIG>. Beam 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you said. I'm just unsure why you had to repeat it in the poll.  I'd wager that all of the "agrees" disagree with any of the "disagrees", and vice versa. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So I say. I actually never stated whether I agreed or disagreed. Beam 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you should say simply *Agree for clarity, instead of going in logical circles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just a logical line until you disagreed with my disagree with the disagrees, that made it a circle. Beam 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Disagree per Bastique, especially when the potential for personal harm exist. What may be a nice on-line collaborative project for some, is another's daily life and personal privacy. We must err on the side of discretion, care, and respect for people. The article's subject perforce has the necessary penetration into public life—otherwise they themselves would not be notable. But the article's subject's family members, if not notable on their own, cannot be exposed or otherwise affected by using the subject as a "coatrack" to hang the fanily members upon. -- Avi (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If there was personal harm that could come from listing the name of a spouse, why are records still made public? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, "Person x is married to person y and has x children" is hardly a coatrack. Second, you say "cannot be exposed" like the fact that they are married isn't a matter of public record and one of the most accessible, verifiable sources available to us.  How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that public records are easily serachable?
 * Our job is to create an encyclopedia, not become an unstructured data warehouse. If the person in question is not notable in his or her own right, the fact that determined people can find out information from other places is irrelevant. We have our own standards, regardless of others, and we are neither investigative journalists nor supermarket tabloids both of whom require exposes and other titillations to justify their existences. We adhere to the polices of notability and are guarded by the requirements of BLP, which seeks to minimize harm to living people. What some determined reader can uncover on their own from elsewhere is irrelevant for non-notable people -- Avi (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Knowing basic personal information is necessary for an encyclopedia. Otherwise, it isn't an encyclopedia. This is why the biography wikiproject recommends info boxes so people can find this basic information easily. Plus, I find it distressing that you would consider "__ married ___" without anything else "tabloid". Such things are listed in almost every newspaper. Unless you can prove where a simple, uncharacterized line can violate BLP, then please withdraw your comments as being far too extreme. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What if the article's subject was a notorious criminal? I notice that John Wayne Gacy's wife is not identified by name in his article.  Postdlf (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that remove the fact that he would be married? The Bin Laden family might not wish that Osama was part of their family. That doesn't make it not true. You may hate the color green, but you better not keep it out of a page documenting the color of grass. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact he was married is noted without identifying her. This is the only type of article I can think of in which the mere identification of someone as a spouse, child, etc. of the article's subject is potentially damaging, however true.  The marriage also pre-dated Gacy's...achievement...of notability, so there is arguably no need, or benefit, to identifying his ex-spouse.  So let's not try to codify some absolute rule either way, ok?  Postdlf (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, for now on, we should say "went to college" but not say where. Grew up, but not give a location. And on and on and on, and be as vague as possible? Thats not encyclopedic. Vagueness is not encyclopedic. Being labeled as a spouse or child is not damaging. If someone feels ashamed of their relationship, thats their problem. However, in such situations, guess what? Those people tend to be notable because of their relationship that they are ashamed of. Hence why there are so many news articles, broadcasts, etc, going after those people for interviews. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It also doesn't mean that we go and list the names of bin Laden family members in Osama's article, unless there's a reasonable rationale for doing so in each specific case--for example, briefly listing the name of his parents in the biography section might be valid, but we don't need to list the names of the rest of his family unless there's a citable source showing that each one played a notable role in his life. If we can't provide an assertion of notability beyond "she's his wife" or "he's his brother" or anything along those lines, I think that WP:BLP concerns would indicate that we should NOT include names of non-notable family members, particularly when their relative's notability is from criminal or violent acts; we don't want to get sued for libel through guilt by association, after all.  Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We sure should say he is a member of the Bin Laden family, and we better say who his parents are or people will mistake which part of the Bin Laden family he is part of. Otherwise, you are damaging more of the family by allowing for false knowledge. Furthermore, you cannot be sued for libel about something that is true. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree with blanket statement. Whether or not the name of a spouse or children should be included in a biography of a living person on this website should be decided on a case-by-case basis.  For major politicians and celebrities, absolutely we list the family.  After that, the gray area begins. Darkspots (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, history should show that only important people got married and had kids, but those who were deemed not important basically don't matter enough to be considered regular human beings who have families of some kind? I think thats rather disrespectful and would violate the respect that BLP wants to uphold. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's slightly narrower than that. History would show that David Beckham married Posh Spice, and that John Smedley (Royal Household) was married with 2 children. I simply don't see how that last article would be enhanced by adding the name of his, no doubt charming, wife and his, surely delightful, children.
 * Actually, its quite the reverse. History would require that we acknowledge that figures notable enough to warrant a biography are human beings that are capable of descending into posterity just like the rich and famous. Being married and having children is an important distinguishing feature. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that it's always and universally important, but that's not what we're debating. I don't think I was clear: How is it better to say "Joe Bloggs is married to Sue Smith." than to say "Joe Bloggs is married." in an article about the notable npf Joe Bloggs? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For posterity. Vague details seem to be unfair, also. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to have a policy that we must include the names of spouses if we know them. If a non-public subject of a biography contacted me and said Please remove the name of my husband from my article I would not stop and quiz her and force her to reveal that her husband is a social worker who counsels highly disturbed individuals and doesn't want any personal details on the internet for obvious reasons.  I would just remove the information from the article, watchlist it, and keep it out.  I can think of a dozen more hypothetical situations where we wouldn't put the name of a spouse in a biography, much less the names of children.  I can also think of dozens of other situations where we would include that information.  Case-by-case works best. Darkspots (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but absurd hypotheticals should not stand in the way of standard biographical entries. Any "disturbed" individual can search the records themselves, and knowing a name does not mean that there is access to the address. Furthermore, there is no way for anyone to be harmed. Also, your own situation says that you are contacted by the individual, without proof that it is the actual individual. If you really have to resort to such hypothetical claims to justify yourself, then you don't actually have a real argument to stand on. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That you think this hypothetical is "absurd" is really, really sad to me. I have been contacted by the subjects of biographies. And I absolutely take their statements that they are the subject on faith, when they ask me to keep unencylopedic details of their lives out of articles.  But it occurs to me that you will think I am lying about this because it happens to be convenient to what I'm saying.  But I'm not, and these articles are about real people. It just really saddens me that you might actually think like this in a real editing situation, not just in a policy discussion--I hope that I'm wrong about that. Darkspots (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you were contacted, the appropriate thing if they had a concern was to address it to OTRS, and they would make the appropriate decision. Otherwise, you cannot prove that the person contacting you is the actual individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely irrelevant. See Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.  That sums up my feelings about this issue. Darkspots (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Outdent, to Beam: Beam, I'm curious, you started the straw poll. What do you think of my strong feeling that subjects (or spouses of subjects) of non-public-figure biographies should be able to ask for the names of their spouses and children to be removed from their biographies, if they cite privacy concerns? Darkspots (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with blanket statement. Darkspots' case-by-case proposal is far more sensible. There's no need for yet another policy statement on this. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree Spouses are not covert agents. This is another example of BLP paranoia run amok.  There is no moral compulsion whatsoever to keep harmless publicly-available information off of Wikipedia.  No one is placed in harm's way by the mention of their spouse's name on Wikipedia.  Further, as marriage and family are among the most important aspects of life, this information is crucial to any biography.  If this goes, what next?  I suspect that soon we will be seeing efforts to remove birthdates and the like.  After all, the birthdate is not inherently notable...and some people may want to keep their ages secret.  We have a moral compulsion to err toward caution!   Mr. IP,  Defender of Open Editing  14:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree Spouses have privacy rights of their own. And the blanket statement at the start of this section includes children, who surely have strong privacy interests. A biography is not the same as a dossier. --agr (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-public figures
With regard to WP:NPF, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. In my mind none of these are controversial statements, but I want to see where the root of this dispute lies. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is possible to be notable under our notability policy and not be a public figure.
 * 2)  WP:NPF applies to biographies of people who are not public figures.
 * 3)  This policy states that for those articles to which it applies, only information related to the notability of the subject should be included.
 * 4)  Parental, marital or other family status may or may not be related to the notability of a given individual.


 * The problem here is that Notability is just plain irrelevant. WP:N is about when it's acceptable to have an article about a subject. Nobody is suggesting that it would be acceptable to have a complete biographical encyclopedia article on a person just because that person happens to be the spouse of someone else who already has an encyclopedia article. Policies and guidelines that restrict complete encyclopedia articles have nothing to do with mentioning content in existing encyclopedia articles. That's determined by relevance. You might as well decide that WP:N applies to talk pages and start saying that people can't sign them because that would be putting non-notable content in the encyclopedia. You can't take a policy that's written about one thing and try to make it about something else. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I was trying to avoid by having specific statements to either agree or disagree with. Can I ask you to do that?  As to your assertion, I have to ask, have you read the policy section I'm referring to?  It states, "include only material relevant to their notability."  It explicitly mentions notability.  It's not like I'm trying to force it in there.  Or is it your contention that WP:NPF is not valid policy?  See, if you think that the policy needs to be changed, that's a different discussion from talking about how it should be applied as it is currently written.  I just want to get on the same page.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My biggest problem with the above statements is the fallacious logic in number two. Just because you didn't intentionally seek notability doesn't automatically mean the BLPites get to gut your biography.  Marginal notability has nothing to do with whether you fit the definition of a public figure or not.  It has to do with the circumstances that lead up to your notability, and while whether or not it is something derived from a choice can have a factor in that, it certainly isn't a deciding factor.  Whether or not something is marginally notable has to be handled on a case by case basis, since notability is ipso facto a subjective concept and can't be codified like you seem to think it can.  As such, I can't support that kind of blanket censorship until further reasoning is added to protect content unless there is consensus for marginal notability, in which case it can be removed.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, first, being a public figure has nothing to do with intention. You could certainly become an unintentional public figure.  I'm not sure what fallacious logic you're referring to.  It's just my effort to state clearly who this policy applies to (it sounds like you would say that it applies to people with marginal notability.  I'd disagree because a person could be very notable, but still not well known to the general public)  And second, I don't support blanket censorship either.  I fully support a case by case basis analysis.  I'm opposing adding language, as proposed by Ottava Rima and others, that inclusion of spouse and other family information is never incorrect.  I don't think we need to add anything to the BLP policy with specific regard to spouses or family.  I think that if you look again, you'll see that at no point do I assert that there's some sort of way to codify whether a person is a public figure or not.  Or whether they have marginal notability or not.  I don't think that.  This is why I'm trying to spell out specific points, because I think that we agree on many of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - is there a definition of "public figure" that we can base any discussion off of? I think that would be appropriate to determine. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're asking about the issue for article person, Wikipedia's policies haven't historically used the term "Public figure" and I don't recommend they start. The term "public figure" is a legal term and is a very different concept from notability. To be called a "Public figure", one generally has to have sought or attracted the general public's attention. (In addition to the Public figure article, see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which discusses the legal origin and meaning of the term). Notability only requires adequate coverage by reliable sources -- other people have to have written something about the person. Numerous people are experts at all kinds of obscure specialties and professions, or have done things others have written about, without ever seeking or attracting the general public's attention. They're not public figures, but they're perfectly notable. Notability isn't the same thing as fame.  Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have specified - ethically speaking (not legally speaking per Jimbo's above statement) how should we interpret the term? Also, you could include the reverse, "private figure", how do we define such ethically (not legally)? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assume that we're using the legal definition, since that's the only one I'm familiar with. Of course, courts have been very inconsistent with how this is applied.  Similarly, we would have to determine whether a person was a public figure on a case-by-case basis through talk page consensus. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of fact: The public figure term has been used in WP:BLP, pretty much since it's inception.  Further, nobody's disputing that notability and being a public figure are two different things.  That is, in fact, my #1 statement. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, if you don't want to use the term "public figure" we can say "not well known" though I think that any way you do it, it's going to be a subjective test for editors to determine on a case-by-case basis. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shirahadasha, I'm kind of confused at what you're objecting to in my discussion of this policy. Can I ask, 1) what group of articles do you think WP:NPF applies to? and 2) What does it say about what should be included in those articles? -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be discussing public versus private figures, and really, I don't think it has any place in BLP and would much rather that it be removed. The legal threshold, unfortunately, is quite high for being a public figuree, and most people aren't public figures; conversely, a great many people can be quite notable without being public figures.  Because of this, it is a Bad Thing to censor filial information on articles on all private figures; a better idea would be to abandon the term and censor only articles whose subjects are marginally notable on a case by case basis.  This should be about marginal notability versus notability, not about public versus private figures; censoring based on the latter is too restrictive.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  00:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what would be so bad about having a narrower focus on private individuals than public figures, but okay. I don't mind changing the terminology (though I think you'll have a hard time with that), but can we at least agree that WP:NPF, for people who are not well known (marginally notable or however you want to define it), indicates that we should restrict information to that which is relevant to that notability? -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For subjects who have consensus that they're only marginally notable, sure; only information relevant to their notability should be included, since their biographies are difficult to maintain and sourcing is difficult to come by for even things relevant to their notability, let alone random facts about their life. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  01:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

An insertion into WP:BLP: spouses names are not private
In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources and stated by the subject, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name.


 * Comment
 * For all subjects of biographical articles, the subject needs to satisfy the Notability (People) criteria to be included in the Wikipedia.
 * Some of these subjects have a marital status known with the usual verifiability criteria.
 * In some case, the name of the spouse (or ex-spouse, intended spouse) is (a) known with the usual verifiability criteria, (b) stated by the article subject, and (c) not disputed.
 * Often, the spouse may not satisfy the Notability (People) criteria to be included in the Wikipedia.
 * Nevertheless, marital status and the name of the subject's spouse are relevant biographical information.
 * There has never been and there does not now exist a Notability (People) test required for the inclusion of the name of a spouse.
 * A complaint that privacy has been compromised can be handled by the WP:OTRS system.
 * This modification of WP:BLP is not a new thing but an attempt to align the existing practice and existing reality of the Wikipedia's of inclusion of spouse names in thousands of biographies of living persons with the WP:BLP policy which may currently be read as a preemptive exclusion of the names of spouses not satisfying Notability (People) criteria. patsw


 * No problem agreeing with this, with the possible exception of BLP1Es and subjects who have consensus (read: not two BLP regulars who make a habit of gutting biographical articles) that they are marginally notable and as such . <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like WP:CREEP to me. Why do we need to add this if it doesn't actually change anything? -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's become necessary because some editors interpret a section quoted above from WP:BLP on the "presumption of privacy" literally to include spouse names. This proposed change disambiguates that and focuses only on spouse names.   You can read more support for the exclusion of spouse names on WT:BLP to get an idea of why this is necessary patsw (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Like the above said; there's been confusion, and we should eliminate that confusion now before we start to lose too much content to the gutting of BLP regulars. :)  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  01:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made the edit to WP:BLP. Discussion, if any, will likely continue on WT:BLP. patsw (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

30,382 articles related to soccer players
30,382. For soccer athletes alone, Wikipedia hosts over 30,000 articles ("profiles"). What the hell are we? An encyclopedia? A database of everything? An information dump site?


 * The problem is that 90% of those articles are of really low quality, containing at best soccer statistics.
 * Those 30,000 articles lower the overall quality of Wikipedia, that's indisputable.


 * This the result of an over inclusive WP:ATHLETE and the fierce defense of that policy by sports fans. No concern or respect for WP:N.

Note:30,382 as of July 30, 2008. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Football_(soccer)_players_by_nationality


 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I never run into these articles, so I don't mind them being there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be "football" (or fütbol etc etc)? Seeing as how most nations don't call it "soccer". It is one of the biggest sports, so its expected to be huge. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're underestimating. We clearly have articles about players from many more countries than those listed.  But so what?  We have articles about US baseball players who have appeared in a single game, and US football players who have been drafted but haven't even played yet.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And your point is? You are just listing comparisons without suggesting anything. Furthermore, just because they may have been drafted or haven't played professionally doesn't mean they don't have a well established career. The current language specifies those who have played professionally, which would suggest, except in very rare circumstances, people with quite a lot of background to that point. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in discussing this, or in trying to prove how much better you are than me? My point is, that you're underestimating the number of articles by a large factor.  Claiming a certain number, when it's obvious there are more than that, isn't very meaningful.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if we're going to get specific about nomenclature, the game is called American football, not US football. They play it in Canada, after all. I don't see the problem with having the association football articles either--they could be useful to some of our readers, there is clearly a body of editors creating and maintaining the articles, players not meeting WP:ATHLETE will in due time have their articles deleted. Darkspots (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd have a point, but the US and Canada were conveniently left out of the chart being displayed. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Compile a list of entries that dont satisfy WP:N and take them to WP:AFD (or even WP:CSD) as a group entry. Let the authors and wikiproject members defend their inclusion there. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why having 18,767 articles about soccer players is being portrayed as a bad thing. "It's against policy" is not a rationale.  Our policies are here to serve us, not the other way around.  Why is having 18,767 articles about soccer players bad?  Give an actual reason.  Plus I'm not even convinced these articles are in violation of WP:N.--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am failing to see why this is an issue.  These articles constitute less than 3/4s of one percent of Wikipedia, and are no different really than the number of actors or musicians who have articles.  And lets face it, WP:ATHLETE is written as it is because by definition, an athlete who meets that guideline meets WP:N.  Athletes that play at the top levels of their sports will have been the subject of multiple, non trivial sources.  Resolute 04:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If that many verifiable articles about football players can be written using reliable sources, then hey, write 'em. In my opinion, it's more likely that we need to write more articles in other underrepresented areas than remove articles in those perceived as overrepresented.  I bet there's over a thousand musicians from the 17th century, say, that could be written, several thousand articles on companies (many of which have been annihilated as "spam" since they were clumsily added as unreferenced, as copyright violations, or in odious marketing-speak), or thousands of articles on places in non-English-speaking parts of the world, -- to name a few examples.  We're huge but not done yet.  Having an overabundance of articles in some areas affects little besides the results of randompaging.  (Try ten or fifty random pages from time to time.  It's interesting what you get.)  Antandrus  (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, if we're going to get specific about nomenclature, no the game is not called American football. That's what they play in the USofA. Here in the second-largest country in the world, it's called football, but you'se might know it as Canadian football eh. I do believe the sport was invented here, but it was too tough for the merkins, so they added the fourth down and dropped the rouge. Of course, the OP meant the real (soccer) football, but football in Canada is not the milquetoast crap played down south. :) Franamax (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Americans don't play American football, we play football. :)  But we also play soccer.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This seemed like a great thread to drop something like my first post into, and apparently I was absolutely right about that. BTW, I had no idea "merkin" ever meant anything other than "woman's pubic wig", so you learn something new every day. It flows a lot better as an adjective in conversation than "US", that's for sure.  Darkspots (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can specifically identify individual articles that fail WP:N, you should list these for deletion. Otherwise, asserting the volume of articles on a given topic doesn't make your point, as there is no size-based cap on coverage. Postdlf (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Making the matter worse there is no end to it, everyday new articles are being created. There is absolutely no commitment to improve them or even to "watch" them.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * O RLY? Sorry, you seem to be in a vast minority here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, so much so I gave up improving Industry in Brazil and Agriculture in Brazil, why bother? Wikipedia doesn't care about quality. Let someone else do it.
 * Also answering with ridicule the concerns of a fellow editor?! Pathetic, you shouldn't be an administrator, maybe you are already intoxicated with the "power" that was given to you.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing we don't have a publication deadline; plenty of time for all those sports fans, and the rest of us, to improve those articles. Postdlf (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt most these articles are even being watched, they are de facto abandonned (here).
 * Maybe when this number hits 100,000 low quality permastubs you, administrators, will take action.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * . It seems like merging a lot of these permastubs into groups might be appropriate.  WP:FOOTY might be able to help.  It's a problem, I guess, but I'm just not convinced it's significant.  SDY (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Argentina has 1337 football players? I find that very appropriate.  SDY (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I whole-heartedly sympathise with EconomistBR but unfortunately, that is the foible of the Wikipedia system. Anything that isn't CSD material is kept in the (sometimes vain) hope that it will be improved. If you've ever done a Random Article walk you'd discover that Wikipedia is absolutely littered with stubs (mostly biographies - including politicians and sportsmen - and geographic locations and place names), that sometimes haven't been touched for months or years. My advice: go about redirecting the abandoned articles to a relevant parent article. If anyone can bother to dig up resources to flesh it out more then the article history is available for them as a starting point. If the articles truly are abandoned noone is going to bother you.  Zun aid  ©  ®  22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In general it's a good idea to clean up stubs that had a chance but never got expanded. We could design a query to locate these articles. Dcoetzee 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, Wikipedia is literally drowning in low quality articles. Clean up?? like in delete? Redirect?. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(Response to recent rewrite of opening statement by EconomistBR) Removing those 30,000 articles about soccer players would lower the quality of Wikipedia further. If it's the kind of information at least some of our readers want, and if the articles meet the minimum standards of verifiability and neutrality, there is no sane reason to remove them.

Nobody reads "an average" Wikipedia article. Implying that Wikipedia is judged (negatively) on the basis of having several short articles about soccer players is spurious beyond belief. (Well, maybe it's judged negatively by you on that basis, but thankfully few other people take such offense at having to "share" an encyclopedia with subjects they don't care about and can easily ignore.) You want to improve Wikipedia? Resume working on Industry in Brazil and Agriculture in Brazil. Don't get pissy about the fact that most people in this world care more about soccer than about industry, agriculture, or other topics. According to page-view statistics collected recently, Naruto has been one of the most popular articles on the site (if not the most popular). Frankly, that boggles my mind. Naruto? I barely even know what that is. But I don't care. I don't deign to tell people what they should be reading about. I just focus on improving the areas of the encyclopedia that catch my interest. Other contributors focus on their own subjects of interest. That includes soccer.

Good for them. If Wikipedia becomes the world's best resource on soccer, that's one more thing to be proud of. Meanwhile, you and I have to get back to work on the other parts. Deleting soccer won't magically improve agriculture. Improving articles takes work. So get to work. Do it because you want to share your knowledge of those subjects with the rest of the world. Don't pretend that our coverage of soccer is in any way detrimental to our coverage of other subjects. Apply the same passion to improving academic subjects that you seem to be applying to your hatred of soccer, and Wikipedia will improve as a result. But if all you want to do is bitch and moan about "all these soccer articles", then the tragic irony is that your hatred of soccer has become a more important topic to you than economics and whatever other subjects it is you should be contributing to.--Father Goose (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Naruto is one of the most read articles in Wikipedia because it has QUALITY...QUALITY. That's what makes Wikipedia RELEVANT.
 * The 30,000 soccer players articles indicate that the notability criteria (WP:N) is being distorted and corrupted in order to satisfy the interests of private groups, but that's a minor problem.
 * Those 30,000 articles are of really low quality, most are a collection of random, incomplete and outdated soccer statistics on irrelevant soccer players.
 * Making matters worse, new ones are being created daily, thanks to WP:ATHLETE.
 * Worse still, there is no commitment to improve, update or even watch them on the part of the soccer fans. All they really want is the right to mass create low quality articles.
 * Even worse still, this problem is replicated on other areas of Wikipedia.
 * Those 30,000 articles lower the average Wikipedia article quality, even though they increase the brute quantity of information.
 * By lowering the average quality you reduce Wikipedia's relevancy and its reputation.
 * Do you get it now?
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I believe that a vast majority of those footballers are more notable than Naruto. - fchd (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Worse still, there is no commitment to improve, update or even watch them on the part of the soccer fans." --I have almost 2000 (mostly football/soccer) articles on my watchlist and I monitor it regularly. I think monitoring tens of thousands of articles would break my watchlist, but I know there are many others who also watch football pages. In many cases we may be watching a similar group of articles but I'm sure if we had a way of finding out which articles weren't being watched then we could spread the work more evenly. There definitely is a commitment to improve and update football articles: we currently have 42 FAs, 58 FLs, 80 GAs and four featured topics. One of the featured topics, York City F.C., concerns a club that currently plays at the fifth level of English football. That shows just what is possible and demonstrates why there are so many articles - because the scope of the topic is large. At the end of the day though, most people edit what they are interested in. I do try to expand stubs, and if we could get a bot to generate lists of "unwatched football articles" or "football articles not edited for x months", I'd be there like a shot to help out. --Jameboy (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, I have not yet seen concrete or specific suggestions as to how WP:ATHLETE should be changed. Postdlf (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa, I'm suprised by some of the opinions here. So what if there are 30,000 articles on football players? There is no limit to the number of articles allowed on a particular subject, only a limit on INDIVIDUAL articles (WP:N). Football is one of the World's most popular sports, if not THE most popular (judging by the World Cup which is second only to the Olympics in viewing figures I believe), so you would expect it to have a hefty amount of articles. I personally can't quantisize an estimate of how hefty, but 30,000 seems reasonable perhaps. Besides, if you were from the UK, or from other places in Europe or even the Far East (not to mention a lot of Africa etc etc), you would know how insane a lot of the culture is for football. When a sport is so popular as to have many people being able to rattle off the names a lot of players from a lot of first teams, then you are bound to find that each of these players passes the notability conditions to warrant an article. Don't forget that say for England, it isn't 6,695 current footballers, but 6,695 current and past footballers. It's a 200 year old professional sport, so there will be a lot of names involved, from Bobby Charlton to Theo Walcott etc. Remember: it is not up to you or any individual editor or any group of editors to set a quota for the number of articles a subject is "allowed" to have. It is up to us to decide the notability requirements of articles on a case-by-case basis. No more draconian than that.


 * I also noticed EconomistBR's comment that, "Making matters worse, new ones are being created daily, thanks to WP:ATHLETE." Well guess what genius? Hundreds of new articles are being created everyday in ALL subject areas! How does making new football articles make matters worse than making say new physics articles? Both are liable to cruft and to vandalism, you can't just assume, "ZOMG a new football article, it must be rubbish, delete it."


 * I also noticed comments about the football player articles that are stubs. Well again this is nothing new. There are stubs in all other subject areas too. Maybe there are more football stubs, I don't know. But the fact that there are more stubs than normal doesn't make this a policy issue. If you are concerned about a stub(s), you don't complain about there being too many, for all you know, a lot of those stubs meet the notability requirements. Instead, you do what's normally done when an editor encounters a stub(s). Either you get lazy and ignore it which is fair enough, we're volunteers after all, or you check the subjects notability. If it doesn't meet it, you propose it for deletion, but if it does, then you don't delete, and if you're still not feeling lazy, you then update the article with new detailed information so that it is no longer a stub. Stubs aren't candidates for deletion just because they are stubs, most articles started life as a stub.


 * And breathe.... Deamon138 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you commented on the QUALITY of the Naruto article. Four months after it was created, this is what that article looked like: .  If we wish to apply the logic you are pressing against soccer player articles, then that article should have been dumped a long time ago.   Instead, it was permitted to grow into what it is today.  Simply put, there are not very many editors who create entire articles out of thin air.  The overwhelming majority grow as a result of small changes over long periods of time by dozens of editors.  Stifling this process would literally destroy what Wikipedia was built on.


 * Contrary to the expressed belief, 30,000 stubs on soccer players does not lower the quality of Wikipedia. We all know that this encyclopedia is not finished, but also that there is no time limit.  Wikipedia is not limited in space, and the majority of these bios meet WP:N (nevermind WP:ATHLETE.  I don't see any policy reason why these articles should be considered en masse, and I don't see any problem with there being thousands of stubs, regardless of what topic is being focussed on. Resolute 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * EconomistBR, you have a right to your opinion, but my opinion is that you're wrong. The most popular spectator sport in the world is obviously going to spawn a lot of articles, but as long as these meet notability criteria (and the vast majority do) then there isn't a problem. Any that don't should be identified and deleted - WP:FOOTY does a lot of this type of work. There are many Wikiprojects and taskforces dedicated to the sport and they have a combined membership of hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedians who concentrate on monitoring and improving these articles. The bottom line is that Wikipedia as a whole has a lot or articles that need help and it is unfair to single out football articles for criticism given that the quality of them in general is no worse than the quality of Wikipedia articles in general. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The overwhelming majority grow as a result of small changes over long periods of time by dozens of editors." Wow, so Intelligent design has a use after all?! (Though I guess not all editors can be counted as "Intelligent"! :P Deamon138 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who contributes to WP:FOOTY and someone who reads plenty of other football discussion across the internet, I know Wikipedia is seen as a leading resource for football bios. It is something to be both proud of, but should also act as an incentive to expanding those stubs and improving the quality of our articles. Yes, there are a lot of stubs, but I bet with a high certainty that the highest proportion of all articles are stubs. We have, at my quick maths two football bios at FA, and 40 at GA. So it's not as if every single football bio is of the poorest quality. Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to sum up the points so far and add a few: There is no reason to go on some sort of witch hunt.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A stub article can be useful. Wikipedia is a leading source of football bio information, and Wikipedia articles are very frequently used as a source of information on football/soccer webboards and such.
 * WP:ATHLETE should not be rewritten to set a higher guideline for notability just because there are so many notable athletes. It's not Wikipedia's fault that a ton of reliable sources like to provide information about a ton of different athletes.  WP:ATHLETE is perfectly in line with WP:N, and to rewrite it to set a higher standard than WP:N &mdash; for your own personal reasons &mdash; would be wrong.
 * These stubs can and do get improved; there's no such thing as a "permastub". For instance, Manny Lagos lay fallow for a long time before I expanded and sourced it a couple of months ago.  It happens, and it keeps happening.
 * Destroying other people's work in other areas of the encyclopedia &mdash; in a way that goes against policy and is based only on your personal tastes and impulses &mdash; is not going to improve coverage in your area of the encyclopedia.
 * Destroying other people's work in other areas of the encyclopedia &mdash; in a way that goes against policy and is based only on your personal tastes and impulses &mdash; is not going to improve the average quality of the encyclopedia, because the encyclopedia will suddenly become devoid of thousands of articles on subjects that meet WP:N guidelines, and that's hardly an advance in quality.
 * There was a time when just about every article was of low quality. Did we delete them all?  No.  Because they were on notable subjects.  Notability, not quality, is the criterion for inclusion.  Don't delete articles before they can improve.


 * Well summed up Mr IP! Deamon138 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the points EconomistBR seems to keep coming back to is equating stubs (or short articles in general) with "poor quality". Britannica's Micropædia is an entire encyclopedia full of stubs, and I doubt anyone would contest its quality.  A really good "encyclopedia of football" would contain 30,000 (if not more) short bios of players.  Well, guess what?  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of football.  It's also an encyclopedia of everything else.


 * This claim that these football stubs reduce the quality of the encyclopedia in general would only be true of they were unintelligible, false, or attack pieces. Few of them are, and only those that are a complete shambles should warrant such negative attention. I find the claims being made here as uncompelling as if someone told me that an unabridged dictionary was inferior to an abridged one, because the unabridged dictionary contains lots of obscure entries, which drags down the average quality of the entire work.  It's nonsensical.  It makes no sense to me whatsoever, and it doesn't look like makes sense to anyone else responding here either.


 * EconomistBR, Agriculture in Brazil, Industry in Brazil, and dozens of other articles urgently need your knowledge and assistance. We have an encyclopedia to write.  Can we ask you to retrain your focus on making the most important parts of the encyclopedia better?--Father Goose (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The assuming thing about this discussion is that EconomistBR purposely created 10-15 sub-stub articles on Brazilian footballers several weeks back when he began his crusade against WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY in order to make a point. WP would be much better served by constructive attempts to improve articles. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tut tut lol! Deamon138 (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, since I got no support I will shut up about this once again. I may be over reacting but the concerns about quality are valid and reasonable.
 * @Jameboy
 * You were the first soccer editor to really address the quality concerns instead of blasting me, which is always easier.
 * @Resolute
 * Naturo was regurlarly edited during those 4 initial months which shows commitment on the part of Naturo fans, unlike this article: Carlos_Vinícius_dos_Santos_Fonseca, created in August 2007, it was edited 4 times and it hasn't been edited since November 2007.
 * @Father_Goose and Deamon138
 * I gave up attacking stubs after I recognized that I was wrong. The issue here is quality. Soccer articles lack minimum quality standards and most are a collection of random, incomplete and outdated soccer statistics, translating in thousands of low quality articles. The [WP:FOOTY]] Group doesn't take action.
 * @Father_Goose
 * Let's say, 15,000 articles have quality 1(?) and 1,000 have quality 10(?), Wikipedia would have a low average article quality, making it unreliable.
 * @Dan1980
 * I focus on soccer articles because the examples of low quality articles are abundant, but I agree this problem is replicated in other areas of Wikipedia.
 * @Mr._IP
 * No destruction and no witch hunt...low quality rarely edited articles should either be deleted, improved by the responsible Project or at least measures should be taken to stop others like it from being created. Anyone of those 3 options would raise the quality of Wikipedia in the long term.
 * It's quite telling the fact that the WP:FOOTY's Article_improvement_drive was cancelled.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  05:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In fairness, I don't see how the fact that the Article improvement drive is no longer active is relevant to your argument. If the situation is as bad as you claim (and I seriously doubt that it is) then concentrating every editor at WP:FOOTY's attentions on a single article each week would mean that it would take 288 years to work our way through the 15,000 article that you claim are of "low quality". By this time many thousands of new stubs would have been created making it a never ending task. Surely it is much better for individual editors to concentrate on their own area of expertise with the help and support of the Project available if and when they need it? This way much more improvement actually takes place and, funnily enough, that's exactly the way things are done at the moment. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Low quality makes an article unreliable? Errr, no. - Dudesleeper / <font color="Orange"> Talk 15:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I read it right, the claim is even stranger, that "low quality" in a number of articles makes the whole encyclopaedia (and by implication all other articles) unreliable. - fchd (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with E-Br that it's not a good thing that we have thousands of sub-stub quality articles, but I simply don't think it's a problem worth getting excited about. It's on par with the number of articles that fail to use non-breaking spaces and use hyphens when they should be using the proper dashes: some people like to fix these things, many of us could care less since it doesn't make the information less useful.  SDY (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * EconomistBR, if you now define your measure of "quality" as "any article that is unreliable", we are finally in agreement. The way to make those articles reliable is to add sources to them.  Only those which prove to be wholly unverifiable should be deleted.


 * This task of quality improvement (adding sources, expanding articles, etc.) is ongoing on Wikipedia. It is our core methodology of improvement.  Read Editing policy: Perfection is not required.  Also read There is no deadline and Wikipedia is a work in progress.  All of those soccer articles will improve within a reasonable timeframe.  If it is your feeling that they must all be perfected this instant, or else be immediately deleted, understand that your feelings are not shared by the rest of the Wikipedian community.  If need be, I recommend you leave the site.  Come back in 10 or 20 years, and be exhilarated by how high its quality will be compared to the present day.  Or, better still, pitch in.  Fire up Google, go to a library, crack open your textbooks, and get to work improving every article you can get your hands on.  This is what I do, every day on Wikipedia.
 * If soccer isn't your thing, let someone else improve those articles. Sooner or later they will all be properly sourced, and those that can't be sourced will be deleted.  You know what the amazing thing is?  That will happen even if you never spend another day thinking about them again.  The encyclopedia is big, it has thousands of people working on it, and sooner or later, every article will get the attention it needs.  Let this colony of ants get back to doing what it does best, and while you're at it, there's this leaf here that needs carting back to the nest.  Would you be a dear?--Father Goose (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "unlike this article: Carlos_Vinícius_dos_Santos_Fonseca, created in August 2007, it was edited 4 times and it hasn't been edited since November 2007." Well you know what you could do now EBR? Edit the damn article yourself if it concerns you that much!
 * "Let's say, 15,000 articles have quality 1(?) and 1,000 have quality 10(?), Wikipedia would have a low average article quality, making it unreliable." Assuming those 15,000 footballers are notable enough to warrant an article, then Wikipedia would have a reliability rating higher than an encyclopaedia that didn't have those 15,000 stubs. And I seriously doubt that 15 out of every 16 football player articles are stub class.
 * "low quality rarely edited articles should either be deleted" No: there is no quality requirement to whether an article should exist or not. Only a notability requirement.
 * "improved by the responsible Project" Or perhaps improved by you, me or any other editor from anywhere on Wikipedia. Those that are part of a project like WP:FOOTY aren't solely responsible for the development of football articles. All editors are responsible. It doesn't take an expert to improve a stub usually. Remember, we are all volunteers here, and joining some form of project doesn't make us any less of a volunteer. Stop shifting the blame.
 * "or at least measures should be taken to stop others like it from being created." Again no: there is no quality requirement to whether an article should exist or not. Only a notability requirement.
 * "It's quite telling the fact that the WP:FOOTY's Article_improvement_drive was cancelled." Well if you actually look what their article improvement drive did, you would know that it, "is a fortnightly collaboration to improve football (soccer) articles to featured article status." It does not say, "is a fortnightly collaboration to improve stub class football (soccer) articles" so your point isn't telling at all.

Okay anyway EBR, shall we all just delete 15 out of every 16 football and other articles on Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT? Deamon138 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IO don't think I've ever seen even one of these articles. As long as they're kept in proper categories, away from the stuff that I like, I'm not going to be bothered. II | (t - c) 19:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * @Dan1980
 * The cancelling of the Article Improvement Drive is relevant because is shows that the WP:FOOTY project could not keep even the modest commitement of improving 1 article a week. That means we can not count on the initiative of the WP:FOOTY Project to improve and maintain the 30,000 articles. I agree that this situation is replicated on the areas of Wikipedia.
 * @Deamon138 and Father Goose
 * We definitely have different points of view.
 * Basically your way of dealing with low quality rarely edited articles is wait forever if necessary since someday someone will somehow improve this article (sarcasm).
 * IMO the way of dealing with such articles should be: delete it, force the responsible Project or editors to improve it or at least set up measures to stop others like it from being created.
 * IMO quality for Wikipedia is paramount, but my efforts to increase the quality and the standing of Wikipedia are diluted by this flood of 30,000 low quality articles about which nothing will be done except wait.
 * IMO quality is what gives Wikipedia relevancy, reputation and reliability.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  10:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO you've failed to address my basic point: if you don't go looking for these articles, you're not even going to notice them. We've heard you. Give it a rest. II  | (t - c) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful not to bold words you've spelled incorrectly. It gives threads a low-quality look to them. - Dudesleeper / <font color="Orange"> Talk 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dudesleeper, that seems a bit over the line. Please reconsider your comment and strike or remove it if you agree with me. (feel free to remove this if you remove your comment.) Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

&larr;Recommend the closure of this thread; it ceased being productive a while ago. Darkspots (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "The cancelling of the Article Improvement Drive is relevant because is shows that the WP:FOOTY project could not keep even the modest commitement of improving 1 article a week." To this comment you should append "to featured article status" as that was what the Article Improvement Drive was for. I applaud any project or group of editors that can get a stub article (which were the articles you were criticising) to FA status in a week! The fact that they gave that up shows that they haven't got the collaboration on to improve an article (note that means ANY article) to FA status at the moment. So as I said, the AID failing has nothing to do with a failure to improve stubs. Improving stubs is much much easier than attaining FA status, that's why FA status is so hard to get. So they basically gave up an initiative to do a harder task than you are complaining that you want them to do.
 * "   Basically your way of dealing with low quality rarely edited articles is wait forever if necessary since someday someone will somehow improve this article (sarcasm). IMO the way of dealing with such articles should be: delete it, force the responsible Project or editors to improve it or at least set up measures to stop others like it from being created." How many times do we have to say that there is no quality requirement for an article to exist? Only a notability requirement! You don't delete an article because it has low quality: you either (as a volunteer) do nothing, or you get that article and have a right good go at improving it yourself. While a project such as WP:FOOTY is there to deal with football articles, it is not solely responsible for football articles. All editors are. As volunteers, you cannot force anyone here to do anything. And you cannot "set up measures to stop others like it from being created." As everyone has been saying, 99% of articles started life out as stubs and were inherently low quality. If they are notable, then they should be in, end of.
 * "IMO quality for Wikipedia is paramount, but my efforts to increase the quality and the standing of Wikipedia are dilluted by this flood of 30,000 low quality articles" Let's assume those 30,000 articles meet the notability requirements (which I'm pretty sure nearly all do). Since the information is notable, and since (as someone above pointed out) football fans all over rely on Wikipedia for this information, then how does that lower the quality of the project? We're providing football fans with notable information, so this "flood" raises the overall quality of the project as no other place has this amount of notable information (except a specialist football website I'd guess).
 * EBR, you may well be improving the quality of other areas of Wikipedia, and if you are, I applaud that. But there is no criteria preventing 30,000 low quality articles from existing. If there is an article or several that you feel doesn't meet the notability requirements, then put it up for AfD. If not: stop complaining! You may well be working harder at your areas than any editor at WP:FOOTY, but there is no rule that says we must all work as hard as you. We are volunteers after all. Eventually all those stubs will be improved by this hefty sum of volunteers. If it annoys you that it will take so long, then improve the articles yourself. It doesn't take an expert on football or an enthusiast to improve a stub, so if stubs annoy you, fix them! Don't just lump them all together and say "OI! These should be deleted if no-one has improved them" when you are just as much to blame as any editor from WP:FOOTY. Deamon138 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * EBR seems obsessed with the idea that the vast majority of footballer articles are "permastubs", however a quick check reveals that only just over 10% of articles on English footballers are stubs. I think "permastubs" are far more likely to arise in other areas - take a look, for example, at Sevenscore.  I know this place, as I was born about 5 miles from it, and it's a microdot village comprising probably less than twenty properties.  Realistically there is absolutely no chance of the article ever being expanded beyond stub status, simply because there's nothing to say about the place (only the frankly bonkers notion that "all towns and villages are inherently notable" qualifies it for an article at all.....) and I'm sure articles exist on other similarly-sized settlements elsewhere in the country - there's some permastubs right there.  Footballer articles however, are fairly likely to be expandable to full article status..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion and merging
I've been involved in some contested merges lately. Is there any process equivalent to an AfD for merges such that there's a little more rigor to the consensus? Since many merges are essentially deletions, is there a process requirement? SDY (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there is no Mergers for discussion page, equivalent to AfD. The page Proposed mergers is just a quick listing.  (As an aside, mergers shouldn't be seen as essentially deletions; information should be combined, not lost; and putting a redirect in place preserves the page history, with all the prior versions still available, of whatever page is going to "vanish".) -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but on the other hand have you ever tried to un-merge an article? You are likely to be reverted with prejudice through a perverse misinterpretation of WP:CSD, especially if the merging was (at least nominally) discussed on AFD. — CharlotteWebb 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A way of looking at AfD is that it asks this question: "Does Wikipedia need an article on this subject?" Delete and Merge/redirect both answer "no". Flatscan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC) —copied from related section elsewhere Mergers and deletions have more in common when considered from a reader's perspective. Flatscan (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To give the main example I was looking at, Louise Brown, I proposed a merge, got a comment in support, and after waiting some time with no opposition, moved a few of the important points to the parent article IVF, following WP:BLP1E. Recently someone reverted these changes  There are two other similar articles for "first" IVF babies who are otherwise not notable which I have proposed merging under the same criterion, and I'd really rather not run into the same problem there.

The change was essentially a deletion because 90% of the information was either unencyclopedic (her work history is irrelevant) or redundant with the IVF article. The other two (Candice Reed, Elizabeth Jordan Carr) have similar issues. SDY (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can the three individuals be considered for merging at one time, or do they have distinguishing features? They seem groupable to me, but I'm not familiar with the subject. If so, considering them together in one discussion at IVF (linking from the merge tags) could have been done. It's a possibility if the later two do not attract discussion. Flatscan (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Louise Brown was #1, and she's the most notable of the three. The other two are just "first in Australia and first in US".  I'm frankly considering just nominating them for deletion outright.  They're already mentioned in the IVF article.  SDY (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment this doesn't seem to be a big enough issue to require a whole new process for this. The normal process of deciding each case on the relevant article talk pages has been fine so far.  We don't want to fix something what ain't broke, and indulge in instruction creep. It seems that a discussion is currently underway at Talk:Louise Brown on this topic, and I would recommend waiting for that discussion to run its course before declaring we need a whole new process.  Be careful of taking the discussion to other forums, as doing so too soon can leave you exposed to charges of forum shopping.  This sounds like something that the wider community doesn't need to worry about quite yet.--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly care what happens with that article, and it appears that those who are opposed to the merge have very strong feelings about it, so I've just excised the parts I felt were unencyclopedic and walked away when they weren't immediately reverted. My concern is that I, as far as I could tell, was following processes and got burned anyway.  It happens, I guess.


 * I was a little surprised when I got involved in another rather heated discussion about a contested merge where the article-to-be-merged was essentially to be deleted. It may simply be a coincidence that I've run into two in such a short period.  SDY (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aervanath that Talk:Louise Brown seems to be in progress, and dispute resolution looks to be sufficient if it needs to be escalated. On the other hand, I think that mergers could use more structure. Disputed issues have a way of attracting policy-interpretation arguments, and the merge guide omits (perhaps intentionally) some key points, e.g. "Is an involved editor allowed to close the merge discussion?" Flatscan (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, whether or not individual editors have been "following processes" is not and should not be a factor in deciding the best result. There exists a certain "I followed the rules and they didn't, therefore I'm right" fallacy. As the old adage goes, comment on content, not on the contributor. — CharlotteWebb 04:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My primary interest here is simply to ask the question: Does the current process work for controversial merges? My experience has been that it does not. It appears that other editors are satisfied with just leaving this to standard editing practices instead of having a formal merge activity. My guess is simply that I have had some unusual experiences and the system, in general, works. SDY (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a DRV regular, I often see cases about merges - usually as an appeal from an AFD decision. This despite the fact that DRV will only make sure that the history is not deleted if it shouldn't be.  I think it might be better to have a more structured method of dealing with contentious merge/split cases, but I don't intend to become a regular of such a page myself and I don't see widespread community demand for it either.  GRBerry 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll stew on this for a while. I do believe that some merges are essentially deletions and deserve the same "due process" as other deleted pages, but it's obviously very grey as to when that formality is required.  I don't think a separate formal merging process is necessary or appropriate, since 90% of the time it would just be added bureaucracy.  A proposal:
 * Add a line to WP:MERGE directing that if a merge will delete substantial sourced information (i.e. due to WP:BLP or WP:WEIGHT), the page should be listed at AFD as well.
 * Add a line to AFD acknowledging that some listed articles are only partially being deleted as part of the merge process.
 * If a merge is just shuffling information around, then any disputes would just be RfM/MEDCAB/3o/ROUGE fodder. SDY (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reservations about this proposal. To me, it seems pretty far outside the current function of AfD, as the AfD result dictates whether the nominated page exists as a full article (keep), a redirect (merge/redirect), or not at all (delete). The partial delete is a finer distinction. Flatscan (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone else said, let's not engage in instruction creep. Bringing a contested merge to AfD seems fine to me; I don't think we really need to add a mention of that to the AFC page. II | (t - c) 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think using AfD would be a good solution to this problem. There needs to be a more effective way to handle contested merges, but a new dedicated comment forum would be overkill. If we do this approach, I believe we should say so in the relevant guidelines. I don't believe doing so would be instruction creep. It's a legitimate use of policy space to explain critical information about how we operate that people need to know to ensure our processes for handling disputes are fair and open. I believe it's important that we explain things like this in an open way. If we don't explain how we handle disputes in our written guidelines, newbies can justly complain that we operate by unwritten rules that give people in the know an unfair advantage over other users when there are disputes. It seems to me that the potential damage to the project from behaving in a way that could elicit this sort of complaint would greatly outweigh any drawbooks of adding a few extra lines to our guidelines explaining what we're doing. If we add or endorse a new procedure like this, we should do so openly and say what we're doing in the guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the comments seem to indicate that some merges are already discussed on AfD and RVD, so it may be that this is documenting an optional process that already exists. SDY (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My impression, especially considering the recent discussion on AN/I, is that taking a merge to AfD is more WP:IAR than an accepted but little-known alternative. I think going to AfD can be very useful for a long-running dispute where wider non-specialist input is needed, following an RfC that failed to attract sufficient input. An AfD can be done sooner, but I hesitate to recommend it for all disputed mergers. Flatscan (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding a note or a section to the merge page seems more appropriate than adding something to the AfD page. II  | (t - c) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was recommending both, mostly because AfD should explicitly note what it is used for. SDY (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I plead guilty to doing this recently with Glenn Nye. The benefit of the AfD process is that it is a formal one, with a definitely closing, as opposed to discussions on talk pages which can drag on forever. When the subject at issue is the existence of the article itself, a formal discussion seems appropriate, regardless of whether it's technically a merger or a deletion. RayAYang (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Justification for WikiProject tags?
I've been aware of this issue for a while and it appears it's still ongoing Talk:Charlie Crist. While this primarily concerns BLPs, IMHO it has broader implications. For those of you lazy to read the discussion, the issue here is; "What, if any, justification is needed for a wikiproject to tag an article (talkpage)?" Does it need to have justification from the article? Does it make a difference if the article is a BLP (since BLP explicitly applies to talk pages as well)? What about if the article is a biography but not of a living person? There is some brief discussion in a variety of BLP locations but since this may go beyond BLPs, I suggest the discussion occur here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LGBT is attempting to state in writing the reasons for adding a template to a talk page, and what the function of that template should be. Because our templates seem to be removed more often than we would like, what we state in writing we hope will serve as an explanation for editors who are skeptical that our template should be on an article's talk page, particularly a controversial one such as Crist's. I find it frustrating that a WikiProject must prove that its primary goal is accuracy, since that is the goal of all WikiProjects. Personally, I am at a loss to understand why editors who are not members of this project remove the WP:LGBT templates from articles because they quite sincerely believe the template harms the article, or feel that the article is not an area of interest for the project. --Moni3 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than WP:OWN, is there any guidance whatsoever on what it means to tag a page? WikiProject_reform talks about it as a problem, but doesn't give any suggestions on what can or should be done about it other than the banner shell.  I'm guessing that this is probably the most controversial tag to BLP articles (WP:LE might also be seen as "sending a message", and adding WP:CATHOLICISM to some modern antipopes might be seen as inappropriate).  WP:LGBT tagging every person who might possibly be a member of the group would be like tagging every single notable Roman Catholic BLP as part of that project: it'd be a meaningful percentage of every possible biography article on the 'pedia.  SDY (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why can't they (WP:LGBT) tag every "possible" member of the group? Does WP:MLB only tag some members of major league baseball teams?  I'm not getting it.  The key to me, because the subject matter is (right or wrong, I say wrong) "controversial", is that the WP:LGBT does need to go an extra step, beyond a cut/dry baseball WP, etc, and proclaim why they are tagging it.  Unfortunate.  But sobeit, and Moni3 has already linked above a (proposed) set of inclusion criteria (that I and User:Benjiboi have worked collaboratively on as well), stemming from a disagreement between Moni and I over Gov. Crist. So, if WP:LGBT, to use the example from Moni, has a "set criteria" for who/what/where/how something is talkpage tagged, what's the beef?  Not seeing it. It's a WikiProject.  There is no "agenda", or "promotion of rumors" (I've heard both accusations, and in my own ignorance came damn close to uttering them)  It's a WikiProject.  IF WP:CATHOLICISM wants to tag anti-popes, has a good reason to do it (to keep the articles free of unsourced, BLP violating "rumors" and disparagements), then they should be encouraged to do so!  By and large, if an editor has gone the step of actually joining a WikiProject, perhaps we can assume that they have good intentions and aren't covert vandals and operatives?  Sorry for the rant, this isn't directed specifically at you, Somedumbyankee (SDY)).  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the MLB comparison is that most MLB players are notable because they are MLB players and for no other reason. Being LGBT is just part of who someone is, it's (generally) not the reason they have an article.  That and there are a lot more LGBT in the world than there are MLB players.  I don't know the specifics of the case you're discussing, but if being LGBT is not a major part of his identity or notability (like a certain New Jersey governor), I'm not sure that tagging it is appropriate.  I don't think there's a hard and fast rule here, especially since I agree that BLP does not apply to the talk page, and projects do not have a formal "charter" that limits their scope.  SDY (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The major issue here is what part sexuality plays in the subject of a biography. When limitations are made regarding how major that role may be (or have been), it only sets the field for a battleground. James I of England's major claim to fame was not being gay, but there is strong historical documentation that proves he had sexual relationships with male courtesans. Elton John's sexuality is well-known, but it is arguable how large a part it has played in his public image and musical accomplishments. If Wikipedia allows such gray areas to determine how articles are tagged, there have been and will be editors who decide to take down WP:LGBT templates because they don't feel there is enough sourcing, or emphasis on the subject's sexuality is unnecessary. The decision to tag should be left up to the WikiProjects with vested interests in the subject. --Moni3 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since tagging it doesn't actually do anything significant, I guess I'm not convinced that the usual consensus decision of editors of the article is a standard we should overturn. In other words:
 * The consensus at the specific article can veto the inclusion of a project tag.
 * The consensus of a project's members can veto the inclusion of a project tag.
 * In both cases, the absence of the tag in no way prevents project members from being fully involved in editing the page. SDY (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion in its many locations has given me cause for a lot of consideration. I think something is going to have to be addressed in a policy Wiki-wide. It seems to be a pattern that when WP:LGBT encounters opposition in its template on article talk pages, editors argue that WP:LGBT's presence is unnecessary, not really functional, and sometimes a violation of a policy. Here, it has taken the turn that WikiProjects as a whole are not really functional and inherently unnecessary. So, perhaps it can be determined that either WikiProjects can all function, tag articles they have an interest in, and organize and support each other in working on similar articles, or no WikiProjects should be able to tag articles and work in an organized fashion. --Moni3 (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They're just an organizational tool, they don't give any particular authority to a group of editors or any authorities. So no, they don't "function" in that they don't do anything in and of themselves.  They aren't necessary, no, but on the same thought process neither are talk pages.  They're very useful, but they don't write the encyclopedia.  SDY (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All these points keep bringing me back: why are editors justified in removing them? If they assist this particular Wikiproject in organization and accuracy, why are these templates subject to removal upon an editor's opinion, and suspect to WP:BLP violation? --Moni3 (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To play devil's advocate, why are editors justified in adding them? Because it is, in their opinion, appropriate.  When opinions collide, consensus makes a decision.  If no consensus, there are a host of options from a simple third opinion to formal mediation.  The policies are written with mainspace pages in mind, but the same logic applies to talk pages.  SDY (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly right, but the frustration here is borne out of this particular WikiProject having to continually re-explain themselves against (sometimes) well meaning and (sometimes) daft arguments, over and over again. And then the dramaz come out, and the accusatory language, and on and on.  And then it settles, and then the "tag" is added somewhere else out of genuine interest in helping out an article, rinse, repeat.  This entire effort is an effort to try to stem at least some of the "objections" and misunderstandings.  If I (or anyone else) tags an article with the WP:LGBT tag, with an edit summary of "This page has been added to WP:LGBT per their inclusion critera", it will be a cool moisturizer on otherwise chafed emotions to not have to have the same battle over and over again.  I agree consensus rules, but I think the "consensus" comes first.  Find a consensus, as  a project, for what gets added, and what doesn't get added, to the Project.  Then tag away as articles/new content/new developments arise without fear of getting flamed off talkpages as being "agenda driven" and other such malarcky.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only guidance I've ever found is that at WikiProject_Council/Guide and WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Influence of this thread&mdash; as a consequence of considering this thread, I have made a proposal to WikiProject Anthroponymy, located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable news reports
we need to rethink policy on short-term news events. case in point: Tim McLean, which to make it look more neutral was renamed Murder of Tim McLean. unlike long-term notable and scientifically significent murder like the murder of Kitty Genovese, the raison d'être of this case is simply because it was "bizarre". consider the following policies which govern what and what isn't relevant, and how people ignore them: WP:RECENT, WP:NOT, WP:BLP1E etc. --Philip Laurence (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on Naming conventions (Hebrew)
Hi! A request for comments has been made for this proposed guideline. Please comment at WT:Naming conventions (Hebrew). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolding
User:Bkonrad is making the case here that we should use bolding to indicate redirects to subheadings. Arguments pro and con are welcome, both concerning style (what do professional-looking magazines, journals, and encyclopedias do?) and concerning Wikipedian practice (How do we usually do this on Wikipedia? Will it be confusing or helpful if some "mature" articles indicate a redirect to a subsection by hatnotes or don't mention the redirect while others use bolding?) Bkonrad uses this as an example: U.S. Route 320 is redirected to U.S. Route 320, and the bolding in the #History subsection is supposed to be the clue that you've arrived there via a redirect. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do our readers care or know if they've arrived via a redirect? Worthy names and alternate names are bolded in the lead; littering the remaining text with bold fonts doesn't help our readers, is unsightly, and this recent suggestion/addition has never been part of WP:MOSBOLD.  Tinopolis is an example of what is being suggested.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do our readers care or know if they've arrived via a redirect? Yes, of course. This had been a part of WP:R for ages and only recently removed, apparently inadvertently by careless edits. [L]ittering the remaining text with bold fonts doesn't help our readers is a strange distortion. No one (well at least not me) is suggesting to litter text with bold text (although I suppose the definition of "litter" in this case is rather subjective--I find the excess of useless footnotes on most FACs to be the ultimate in litter and that a small bit of helpful emphasis is hardly litter). At least I do not see that the judicious use of bolding to help readers make sense of why they are at an article titled X when then were expecting something titled Y should be summarily dismissed as "litter". Perhaps I've been laboring in the backwaters of Wikipedia for too long -- but I honestly thought this practice was common -- it had been explicitly part of the guidance at WP:R for a very long time. older ≠ wiser 18:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like pure instruction creep to me. SDY (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with SDY, we have enough WP:CREEP already. What readers need most is  simpler language - which would also be a good idea in  internal discussions. -- Philcha (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on, in introducing this, Dank55 inaccurately presents my position as prescriptive -- that redirected terms should be bolded. However, my position is rather that the MOS should be permissive of such use where it might be helpful for readers. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How would a reader know that being bolded has any sort of special meaning if it's used inconsistently? If someone did it, I would get about as excited as if someone used the wrong kind of horizontal line for punctuation, but I don't see how adding more instructions to allow for this use really helps much.  It doesn't make any intuitive sense that bolding it means anything in particular.  It would only make sense to people who use Wikipedia regularly, which is a bad precedent to set.  The learning curve for readers should be as flat as possible.  SDY (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is already used in many cases and had been an explicit recommendation on WP:R until inadvertently removed recently. I'm not sure what you mean about horizontal lines. But what intuitive sense does it make to redirect a reader from term X to a page entitled Y, with no readily apparent indication in the text of why they are at that page? I don't think it is for Wikipedian regulars only. There could perhaps be a better mechanism for this sort of assistance, but otherwise I think dumping a reader unexpectedly onto some apparently random page is not very helpful either. older ≠ wiser 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By horizontal lines I meant WP:DASH, that wonderful tornado in a tophat that means almost nothing to the average reader. I understand your concern about redirects, but bolding doesn't mean anything to the average reader, it only helps those who are sixth-dan black belts in wiki-fu who already know what happened anyway.  Since it has no predictable or consistent effect, recommending it is just clutter in an already lengthy list of requirements.  SDY (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that is an interesting perspective, although I disagree that it requires any special knowledge to realize that bolding may help a reader to locate the desired term in a welter of text. older ≠ wiser 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the term "desired"? The only effect of the proposal that I see is that it makes subsections appear as if they were independent articles, which is obviously a problem since that's not the way the pages are structured. Ultimately, the question I'm looking for is "what problem does this recommendation fix?" It doesn't help a reader who has been redirected realize they've been redirected and may actually further confuse them. If it doesn't fix a real problem, it's a pointless accomodation to a dead and misguided tradition. SDY (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The term is desired in that it is the term a reader clicked on in an article or entered into the search box. They then end up in some other article due to a redirect and wonder WTF am I doing here? Subsections are indeed often structured as mini-articles. Stubs are often merged into other articles. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable, but it is nonetheless commonplace. Also see Guide to writing better articles. I think your statement It doesn't help a reader who has been redirected realize they've been redirected and may actually further confuse them is off the mark. You claim it doesn't help a reader realize they've been redirected -- that should be fairly obvious to anyone with a luke-warm IQ when they arrive at a page title that is different from the term they were looking for. Also the wikimedia software inserts a message under the article title informing a reader that they've been redirected. However why they have been redirected is not always very obvious. In such a case, a reader scanning a page for some clue pertaining to the term they were looking for will be helped by bolding. older ≠ wiser 18:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a reader with a lukewarm IQ can also be expected to figure that out unless the redirect is inappropriate. To someone who is just reading the article but wasn't redirected there, it will appear that random pieces of text are bolded for no apparent reason.  There are isolated cases where it might be helpful, but in most of those cases the redirect would just be to a dedicated article section (i.e. an important previous name used in the history of a current entity).  Actually accomodating the redirect into the text so that "why" is obvious is a much better solution than just randomly bolding it.  If the redirect makes no sense to the redirected article, the redirect is inappropriate.  Bolding a random phrase won't fix that.  SDY (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why then should we bold any terms at all in an article? Why are alternate names bolded in the intro? For that matter, why is the title bolded in the intro? Such bolding isn't really any more intuitive than bolding of significant terms within the body of an article. older ≠ wiser 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bkonrad, thank you very much for bringing this to our attention; I think most of us were unaware that this was in the editing guideline WP:R up until April, when apparently it was deleted without discussion. (Btw, if I misrepresented your position, sorry, let me know if this clears it up.) I'm wondering if a soft redirect wouldn't be a better way to explain to a reader that they're about to arrive at a subsection on another page with a name that they might not be expecting, although this approach isn't specifically suggested at the soft redirect page.  I make this suggestion instead of bolding for a couple of reasons:
 * Bkonrad has pointed out a lot of pages over at here that have bolding in places not recommended in our style guidelines, and it does appear that in at least some of those, the idea was to alert readers that they've been redirected to a specific section; and given that the guidance in WP:R suggested doing this for a long time, that's no surprise. Unfortunately, no one noticed that WP:R contradicted the style guidelines.  I've rarely seen bolding that even might have been used this way in articles I've copyedited or reviewed, and never had anyone point to WP:R before as the reason for the bolding.  Since it's (apparently) so rare, I agree with SDY's point: secret codes only work if everyone knows the code, and this is a code that almost no one knows (otherwise, they would have dealt with the contradiction in guidelines).  It's likely that people who saw bolding in a subheading, but weren't redirected there, have often had no idea why there was bolding, and deleted it.
 * Copyeditors and article reviewers tend to really dislike bolding in articles. As far as I know, the style guidance has always been against bolding in "ordinary" text, whatever that means.  (It doesn't mean in the lead, or tables, or infoboxes.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As to why the article name should be bolded in the lead, some random speculation: it makes sense for articles with multiple common names (i.e. red blood cell and erythrocyte). It endorses the idea that the title of the article is not a formally blessed "correct" name and that the other bolded names could just as easily have been the article's title. This has WP:NPOV value. SDY (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Bkonrad, you mentioned a potential solution on the other page: "Perhaps an ideal solution might be for the software to automatically (or at least optionally) bold terms from a redirect within an article." Devs have been very slow to implement anything related to style guidelines over the years. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (after ec and after the P.S. above) To be honest, although my comments here might indicate otherwise, I actually don't like excessive and random bolding in articles either. However, given the multitude of inconsistencies inherent in Wikipedia, seeing a significant term occasionally bolded within an article doesn't bother me all that much, even though there may be better ways to address highlighting redirected terms. In a perfect world, perhaps the software could automatically (or at least optionally) highlight terms from a redirect (or even better--only for certain classes of redirects). Short of that, perhaps guidance on merging and redirecting can be clarified so as to make the context for redirects from significant terms clearer in the parent article. I mean, in cases where there is a section named for the redirected term, the term is appropriately highlighted. But in some other cases, particularly when dealing with minor historical figures that are only treated within the context of a larger article, then perhaps your suggestion of soft redirects might work. Or perhaps we just need to learn to tolerate stub pages that provide some minimal context and then link to the primary article (which may amount to the same thing as what you describe as soft redirects). older ≠ wiser 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose this idea. I agree with Somedumbyankee and Dank55 that "secret codes only work if everyone knows the code." Oh and to Bkonrad who said, "given the multitude of inconsistencies inherent in Wikipedia" - WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. Deamon138 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the multitude of inconsistencies in reference to why I didn't find occasional bolding bothersome, not necessarily as an argument for such bolding--at most, it was perhaps a mild suggestion that simplistic consistency is not more important than helping readers in the vast oceans of inconsistencies that constitute Wikipedia. And I do not understand why people keep saying this is some sort of secret code. That is BS. A random reader of an article might pause momentarily to wonder why some key terms are bolded, but is that really an impediment to understanding an article? And on the other hand, consider the plight of a reader stranded in an article with a different name than the term they were expecting with no obvious indication of why. Bolding the redirected term is no secret code in that situation either -- it offers some immediate visual assistance. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

←I didn't mean anything derogatory by "secret code", only that this meaning of bolding that WP:R used to mention (a redirect to that section) is/was unknown to most editors, so most editors of articles of a certain maturity have been deleting the bolding when they've seen it. A lot of people bring articles to WP:FAC or comment on them, and I don't think anyone has brought this meaning of bolding up at FAC before...if they had, everyone would have said "wait a minute..." I'm pretty sure this kind of bolding doesn't survive WP:GAR either...I'll be happy to check if you like. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In support of Bkonrad&mdash;Personally, I do tend to bold terms that are targets of redirects in an article. I also tend to accompany such bolding with a comment  indicating that xyz term redirects "here" &mdash; a practice I would recommend in general.  Such bolding is most useful given the following conditions:
 * the term that is the redirected term appears once in the target article
 * the appearance of the term is after the first screenful of material, i.e. where the automatically generated 'redirected from' hatnote is not visible, which typically occurs in cases such as R to section, R to list entry, R from subtopic and similar. Not all redirections are 'clean', particularly some classes of R from merge and some R from alternative name.
 * In my opinion, at least half the point behind the bolding relates to the principle of least surprise&mdash;a person clicks on Link X and finds themselves in the midst of Article Y; if the person needs to consider "umm, why am I here?", that is a Bad Thing (not really a Very Bad Thing, but it could be).
 * The other half of the point behind the bolding is editorial in nature. It is very common for someone to redirect a term to an article then, over the course of months of editing by many people, the target term is lost from the article, leading one to wonder vainly "wherefore this redirect?"  Personally, if I encounter a bolded term while editing, I do think twice about removing it and consider "now, why might this term be bolded?" which often leads to a look at what links here and either a revelation or another round of head scratching.
 * In summary, there are good reasons for bolding at least some terms that are redirect target terms, both from a reader's and an editor's point of view.
 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with these arguments is that they assume that the reader has some idea why the text is in bold, a custom which apparently even veteran editors are not aware of. Instead, it appears like random sections of sentences are in bold simply at the whim of the person that wrote the article.  If you assume that bolding just means "this is emphasized" your reader will simply be confused.  It doesn't fix the problem of dead redirects, though actually just including a /nowiki'ed comment that says "such and such redirects here" with no visible change might be helpful for future editors.  SDY (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The bolded terms are, in my own editing, almost always either proper nouns or specialized terms that are directly related and key to the topic at hand. They are not random passages of, for instance, <tt>this property is useful to the user</tt>.  It is not unusual in educational, instructional and reference works for key concept terms to be bolded or footnoted in some fashion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. addendum: in web pages, bolding for emphasis has typically been replaced by linking (with different text properties) for more information and emphasis. Bolding in Wikipedia articles is typically understood to mean "self reference" based on this being the default font type when you have a link to this place in the article this place .  The conceptual gulf to considering redirects to be self-references is not a wide one. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently I missed that gulf, as did a few other people, so it must not be very obvious. My one axe-to-grind with style is that it should be, as you put it, the "least surprise," and this creative use of bolding fails that expectation.  We're using bold as a "weak redirect back-link" which has no precedent that I'm aware of.  The emphasis expectation may lead to problems, especially for things like anchor baby (not a redirect now, though merge has been suggested), that may have NPOV problems if it appears we are adding emphasis to decidedly non-neutral language.  SDY (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "It is not unusual in educational, instructional and reference works for key concept terms to be bolded or footnoted in some fashion." Yes no one is suggesting that we bold all key concept terms. The suggestion as far as I'm aware is to bold only those terms that have come from redirects. This means that to those not "in the know" the assortment of bolding will seem random (not all subsections are linked to via redirects). While to us "in the know" (editors) it will be fine for us to comprehend, it won't be fine for those not "in the know" (readers) who may be thoroughly confused, and after all Wikipedia articles are meant for readers, not editors. Deamon138 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'd like to put a bigger frame on this picture, and hopefully pull in people who might not get this far in this thread, so please see below. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "I also tend to accompany such bolding with a comment " That comment would only be visible to editors and not readers, hence why this is seen as a "secret code". Deamon138 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You picked one of the several reasons I support bolding and used that to label the entire notion a matter of adding secret code. No, that is not the correct interpretation.  The comment visible to editors is meant to provide a speed bump if someone objects to the bolding - and typically (in my opinion) someone who is making changes to an article on the basis of a Manual of Style is often (not always by any means) doing so with little or peripheral regard for the topic of the article, but rather the mechanics of presentation.  Thus, we are not talking about readers as the primary objectors to bolding, but high-volume editors - and the editor-visible comment is directed toward them, one of several consumers of article content. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually readers will be the ones most adversely affected by this: see Somedumbyankee's last comment above. Deamon138 (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with SDY's assessment, as noted above in response. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And I disagree with your assessment, as noted above in response. Deamon138 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) at any rate, there appears to be no consensus to return this to the guideline. Rules should only exist when they are obviously beneficial. The proposal's benefits are at best marginal and there is potential harm in implementing it. Since there is no consensus to restore this guideline, especially since it was almost totally ignored when it was part of the guideline, let's just table the proposal and move on. SDY (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles)
Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles) has been proposed as a further but necessary extension of the notability infrastructure. As this infrastructure of subject specific notability guidelines grows, we must keep pace with the need to define every permutation of expectations at AfD and prevent the dangerous application of independent thought. Not only must we determine consensus on this critical issue immediately, but we must also hasten to define every possible situation which may tax the good judgment of our AfD closers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is not POINTy how ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate a humorous "guideline" as much as anyone, but this edit and this revert are clearly going too far. Let's not get carried away whilst fighting the dreaded instruction creep (that notability template has gotten pretty ridiculous...). — Satori Son 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but as you say the creep is way out of hand. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When you look at the "Active proposals", the number of individual notability guidelines being considered is somewhat disquieting. Religious texts? Aircraft?? Toys and games??? To be honest, I rarely agree with Kevin, but he is correct on this issue: We are going to have to reign this in at some point. — Satori Son 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're putting the final touches on an RFC that is aimed to get wide-community input as to the purposes/necessity of subnotability guidelines in addition to another significant issue regarding notability. The issue of having so many specialized notability guidelines is one to be addressed. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I also found the ANI discussion here, so this issue has arisen several places.  Hopefully, a community-wide RfC will be productive and I look forward to it. — Satori Son 15:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever happens, please know that I found this latest (sub) guideline to be absolutely hysterical (and we all know that only the truth makes us laugh the loudest). Spot on, Kevin Murray.  You've been added to my Hall of Fame.  Just sayin. :-) <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The bigger picture
Okay, under above, there's an argument that comes up often; I'm starting a new section in the hope of pulling in people who want to register a vote or opinion. The usual arguments run something like this: you may want to oppose (more or less) the quantity or quality of current style guidelines if they don't look right to you, or even if they do look right, but you're concerned that they give people license to get heavy-handed, or if you think that so many rules discourage worthy contributions. You may want to support if they're working for you: they aren't enforced in general except at FAC (and a few pages at GAN); and when they are used, they can make for a more pleasant editing environment by settling arguments once, and in one place, so that you don't have to make the same arguments constantly and in every article you care about. They're also probably an essential part of making WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and wikiproject review and collaboration processes work. There's also the mantra to consider that the needs of the readers outweigh the needs of the writers.

The reason this discussion is here instead of WT:MOS is that people who can navigate the style guidelines generally have positive experiences at WP:FAC and WP:GAN...which is a good thing, but then we get criticized that we're out of touch with the experiences of most editors. I want to see if we are, and Sandy and others are also requesting that we have a more general discussion and try to settle some of these issues so they don't come up again and again as if no one has considered this general question before. It seems to me that, if we can get a general sense of the community here, then the question up at becomes easy, and if we can't get an answer here, then we can't settle the question at  to everyone's satisfaction...or the many similar questions that come up on style guidelines pages. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm representing this as a "vote" because people seem to like that, but this is really about letting people forcefully make their favorite arguments in both directions, not about winning or losing a vote. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Support. I realize my answer is completely subjective, colored by many happy experiences at WP:FAC and elsewhere, but I find that the style guidelines more or less work for me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Dan, but I'm not clear on what the question is; generally, what ails MoS, though, is that there are too many pages and no centralized discussion point. I have always advocated that we need to invigorate and use WP:MOSCO, which has been basically ignored since the day it was created. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: what is the question? (If it's "do you like the style guidelines?" I will oppose: they are mostly a semi-literate prejudiced failure.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I support some and oppose others. Some are arbitrary and prescriptive, some are just documentation of common practices of formal writing.  A lot of style is purely arbitrary for the sake of being consistent, and I personally get annoyed at GA reviews that harp on about an article failing to meet WP:MOS on some pedantic point, especially when Real World (tm) usage varies.  I would demote 90% of MOS to an essay.  It very often makes good sense, but that good sense must be able to stand on its own.  SDY (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is surprising how people can react so differently. I too would demote 90%, but probably a different 90% (a mathematical impossibility :.   Reason being, that I find the arbitrary and prescriptive guidelines the most useful, such as, always use an unspaced en dash to connect a range of dates, mark the main sections with level 2 headings, and never use horizontal lines.  It captures the house style so I can make my writing more quickly digested by a regular Wikipedia reader or editor.  Contemporary writing style is nice to repeat here at Wikipedia for those of us that don't have CMOS or equivalent at our desks, but should be demoted, such as: use consistent spellings, only capitalize proper nouns and the start of sentences. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only 10% I would retain would be things like WP:ENGVAR which deal with contentious issues where keeping track of that which has been decided is important to stop future arguments. Things like en-dashes must be worthwhile in and of themselves and not done "because the MOS says so."  If they're being done for consistency, that should be sufficient justification.  SDY (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ... to see if ... we're out of touch with the experiences of most editors. My sense is that the vast majority of editors don't know about the vast majority of MOS guidelines, nor do they care if someone else wants to copyedit their contributions to make them conform to MOS guidelines.  I think what editors do want is consistency - so they don't have to guess at how to do something (they can just model after existing articles) and they don't have to puzzle out why different articles are handled differently (particularly when there is no good reason for the differences).  If MOS-focused editors are being heavy-handed in applying MOS guidelines, that would seem to me to be a problem of not following the point in Help:Reverting that states If the edit you are considering reverting can instead be improved (for example, to avoid weasel words, or to re-phrase in a more neutral way), then try to reword, rather than reverting.. I can understand why editors might be turned off by the plethora of rules within GAN and (particularly) FAC, where an editor can have a significant sense of ownership, plus a significant investment of time in the existing format of an article, and therefore a reluctance to invest even more time making what seems like arbitrary changes.  And I'm not sure what can be done about that. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think with MoS in particular, you have to keep a careful balance between guidelines, and WP:COMMONSENSE. Deamon138 (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)