Wikipedia talk:Prices

Historical legacy
I am unaware of any legacy discussions about how primary data comes to be accepted routinely in Wikipedia.

At some point in the past, some kinds of primary data came to be acceptable, and other kinds not.

After this early judgment, the rules became more difficult to change. I do not know how "pricing" data could come to be judged if a change were proposed. One problem with prices is that they are geographically relative, whereas other kinds of primary data - like city populations - are absolute if Wiki reports them. I am not sure.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there is also a healthy amount of cultural elitism in those editorial decisions. Populations are regarded as encyclopedic information whereas monetary values are discounted as lower interests. But there is no splendid isolation between money and the rest of the world. - Another reason might be that monetary values change frequently, and that most encyclopedias were printed after the time where currencies were stable over decades. Capital in the Twenty-First Century mentions that a lot of the 18th century novels fall into a time where you could describe a character as earning this-many pounds, and that a reader at the end of the century could still make a valid estimate of the character's financial and social standing. Today, novels avoid these numeric values, because they become meaningless within a decade. - On Wikipedia we can update frequently (see Internet rankings, Stock exchange numbers, net-worth) and we have to take an active role in reducing bias and cultural-elitism. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quantitative denial
I did some exploring of the what-links-here of WP:NOPRICES and WP:PRICES. Most discussions seem to take place about rather non-essential goods (consumer electronics, cars) and the only infobox that seems to include prices is Template:Infobox information appliance. Meanwhile a search for "affordable" returns 38240 results. I therefore conclude that prices have already entered Wikipedia in qualitative form, and suggest that this page be turned into a Wikipedia guideline that regulates the qualitative and quantitative mentionings of prices.

Furthermore prices of essential products (a visit to a doctor, a liter of drinkable water, a year of tutition for a school) have a profound impact on the way we process information. For example I can read a page about a private jet, and from my experience I know that I can't afford one. I will therefore either never look up the average or lowest price of private-jet-flying or will have to invest much time into research (maybe not available in a language I know). But if the number were more present (i.e. on Wikipedia), I could reach a ready conclusion and make much better decisions about my private-jet-flying plans.

I think that we might have a similar situation in less educated communities. People might be under the impression that certain goods and services are unafordable to them, and the barrier for research is infinitly high in those cases. So I would like to propose further, that by introducing more numeric values we end the +12000$-per-year bias of Wikipedia. Words like "affordable" are probably written by people that have at least more than 12000$ per year and are truly meaningless to those that have less, or substantially less. The statement "affordable to" only has 411 hits on Wikipedia, and it therefore seems that most of the qualtiative statements that are made are not qualified in a way that would be required in order to be neutral and unbiased for readers, regardless of their financial situation. A numeric value is much more neutral in this regard, but would need to be updated frequently for unstable currencies. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: why no prices at all?
Hello, it is as a consequence of a derailed discussion on a talk page this one, that I commence this one here. In a nutshell (I hope): All in all, is opposition to the inclusion of prices in the above case, proper? Does the non-descriptive and non-compulsory WP:PRICES really give basis to delete this carefully searched and referenced information? As mentioned, I am forcedly resorting to starting this discussion here, because of the derailed RfC on the relevant Talk Page (and other retaliatory actions against me, including being subject of a sockpuppet investigation, which I have no qualms highlighting, unlike the opposing editor's practice of oppressing and/or contorting facts—as I have complained about in the sockpuppet report—and deleting warnings from his Talk Page). Above all, I raise this discussion here with a view to encourage/seek more more definitive and/or prescriptive guidance on this WP... it isn't helpful that it is so inconclusive, causing the above type of arguments to arise. I am not requesting or suggesting that this Policy be varied to allow prices for all consumer goods, but a car is typically a major purchase for most people, with price being a key factor in consumer choice. I argue for price inclusion, only if fully referenced and as it applied at a specific point in time (the most practical, if not logical, being the time of launch of the car or last listed price). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPRICES or WP:PRICES is clearly neither definitive nor compulsory, in omitting price information from articles
 * the present case arises because, in an Australian car article (Mitsubishi Magna), for some 1.5 years, recommended retail prices have been included without any opposition by any of the regular editors
 * opposition has been (improperly?) raised of late by a regular editor (OSX) only in retaliation for a separate discussion not going his way (which involved both me and him)
 * in 2014, a discussion went against the inclusion of prices, with reasons including: (i) a lack of reference; (ii) price flactuations over time; (iii) the potential for car dealers to spam; (iv) the potential misuse of the article as a sales catalogue (note: the originating RfC has also been compromised by an offensive participant to the 2014 discussion, Mr.choppers, claiming that it was all done and dusted 2 years ago)
 * to address, or in answer to, the above valid points: (i) full reliable external references have been found and included, from Australian car magazines; (ii) the prices included, for each series of the car over a period of 10 years, have strictly been only those listed at the time of launch of each car thus eliminating the issue of price flactuations; (iii) the car has out of production for over 10 years; (iv) by being only prices at launch, it ensures that "special" or "discounted" prices are not included... and a car is not an insignificant household good, which renders its price a key factor for consumers
 * the launch prices have been included in such a manner that they do not render the article illegible (prices are included in brackets, against each model variant, where these are listed)
 * other car articles (and I am aware this is not a basis for inclusion) also contain prices, without reason or context, let alone full references unlike the above case
 * in the above case, prices were a determinative factor of the car's success (in terms of competition and winning Car of the Year awards) and failure against other Australian-made cars
 * in the manner in which prices have been included, it is possible (for those who may choose to do so), to carry out trend analysis of new car prices in Australia, which, in the case of this car, spans a period of 20 years (such analysis may seem trivial and I do not profess the following being a determinative crucial point, however, come 2017, no more Australian cars will be manufactured, so prices have the potential of being an important historical fact in future relative to imports)
 * AN ALTERNATIVE: could the fully referenced prices perhaps instead exist in a table, which lists all series, models and variants of this car, if it is a case of readibility?


 * Disagree - As per WP:NOPRICES. Also, the fact that no one removed incorrect material does not mean it should now stay. It's as if someone wrote "Adolf Hiller" and no one noticed for 1.5 years - it would still be wrong.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree the sort of price detail in the Mitsubishi Magna goes against what is accepted practice, while it would not be unreasonable to say that the car was launched to sell at $9999 if that follows what reliable sources state was a notable point in development, a detailed breakdown of exact prices for each model and options is not encyclopedic per this essay. MilborneOne (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree as per the two above contributors. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree There is nothing about the price information that is notable or contributes to the article. Inline pricing seems to reduce the readability of the article and does not add any encyclopedic value.  Also it is not customary practice to include pricing in wikipedia articles on cars.  Data has value primarily in context.  Having one car article with pricing when other car articles lack it seems like orphaned data without a context.  Klaun (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes/No I think that inclusion of pricing in a single car article is not a suitable course of action; uniformity in subject treatment is important in a neutral encyclopedic setting. However, I would advocate including something like "price at realease" across all such articles (i.e., incorporating it in the relevant general guideline). As the OP states, that type of pricing information is unlikely to be subject to gaming, and pricing information, both across types or brands and longitudinally, is encyclopedic info. E.g., comparative cost-at-release of a 1950 Rolls Royce vs a 1950 Oldsmobile is definitely something I would like to be able to look up (if I had more than a passing interest in cars, natch), and the time to record these data for future reference on current goods is now.-- Elmidae  (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree. WP:NOPRICES is clear. No-one has given a reason why this particular product should be an exception. Maproom (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree in principle. It makesa great deal of difference if an automobile is aimed at price point of $20,000 or $100,000. It is also pretty much the first thing that anyone looking for the information would want to know. IBuut we do not need the details. The simplest solution for cars is to give the base price for the most commonly sold version of the car, or for the least expensive version, with readers expected to realize that fancier trim and faster engines will cost more, and also yto know whereto get the details. In particular, this information over time,in a series of real  and nominal prices is a very important economic and technical indicator.  Automobiles are economic objects, not just technical ones. They play a role in the economy. Some reflection of this is appropriate in the encyclopedia  The comparative costs of different things that play  similar roles is important also: the comparison between what a horse cost in 1850, or a bicycle in 1900, or a car in 1950m, ia  quite illuminating about social history. . (the 19th century encyclopedia writers had it fairly easy---there was no long term inflation in that century, and the cost of things did not have to be adjusted, and figures once given remained valid; here, we do have to adjust.


 * In other fields, similalr considerations hold--the cost of common tools, the cost of electronics, the cost of clothing, the cost of books, the costs of education, the cost of housing, are all factors in their fields. The world, after all,  does run on money.

"The specific are more complicated: we should not be giving details; but we should be giving wnough to be helpful We write the encyclopedia so it can be used. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It is dull to agree with the majority, but this issue leaves me with little choice but to disagree, in line with the majority of the foregoing responses. I do not say that no article could ever contain price information, such as in a topic legitimately dealing with inflation, but casual mention of prices is for most purposes uninformative as well as inappropriate. Anyway, it is thin-edge-of-wedge stuff; when in doubt keep it out say I. JonRichfield (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose adding prices in this case even though I am ready to talk more about adding prices in a different way, perhaps even to this car article. I do not think that the Mitsuibishi model is an ideal test case because there are too many prices listed making that case too complicated to clearly consider, but there might be some way to simplify the price presentation and to confirm that only good data is presented.
 * I work for a nonprofit consumer organization, Consumer Reports, which says that products and services are best understood in the context of their prices. I recognize that price data is difficult to collect, and that Wikipedia is an international project and that it is difficult to report prices in any meaningful international way, but I am open to the idea of including prices for mass market products if it would be possible to examine the ways in which reliable sources present prices and if we had good data sources for prices. Like DGG, I would like to clarify, for example, which cars cost approximately 20,000 versus which ones cost 100,000. Wikipedia currently does not do this.
 * I am not aware of any good plan for adding prices to any Wikipedia articles. I would discuss one with anyone, including the development of a plan to add prices to car articles, but to start I would want to see good price data for a well chosen test case with minimal controversy. I am not sure that sharing this data about this car is the best way to develop a price policy. I wonder if there is better data for this car, or a different way to share this data. It does seem like a good idea to say, "in this market, on this date which was the release of the car, this was the price". We already do that with phones and video game consoles.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Prices on Wikidata
Wikidata has a property (d:Property:P2284) that allows to add prices to any item. This would be an ideal way to test the usefulness of prices as long as Wikipedia is still lacking this information. I hope we can get discussions going on both projects about this issue. The issue of notability is also lower on Wikidata and adding many statements, makes it easy to take into account different dates and localities for prices. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would like to see more prices on Wikidata.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Shortcuts
Suggesting that the major shortcuts be restored to WP:NOT.

WP:NOT is the most specific guidance we have about prices in a policy/guideline, and while I think the conversations this page was created to foster are important, I don't think the shortcuts should be retargeted to a page that says, effectively, "[policy] says [such and such], but...". In other words, it seems like the goal of this page is, at the moment, to better understand consensus regarding inclusion/exclusion of price data in articles, to find exceptions, to think about best practices, etc. -- all good things, but in exploring those it's doing something other than providing non-controversial information about a policy. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention."
 * Basically is simply saying WP:V and WP:DUE. It is not saying prices should not be included. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I started to respond, but I'm really not trying to start another thread on the topic of what that line of WP:NOT implies. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. The only point I'm making with this section is that this page is not dedicated to a wholly non-controversial explanation of that line and thus shouldn't be the target of the shortcuts (especially shortcuts that previously pointed to a policy). Happy to have the more substantial conversation, but I don't know that it's necessary in this case. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect to restoring the redirect have no opinion one way or the other. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree to restore the original redirects. In its current state the essay is very biased towards one viewpoint (namely to allow a more lenient handling of price information) and fails to fairly reflect the current policy, which is clearly established in WP:NOT. Accordingly, long-standing policy shortcuts should not be changed to point to a personal essay. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Lost track of this - admittedly secondary - issue, but have now restored the original redirect which is still in use. Also clarified the discussion aspect a bit: if it's really necessary to "outsource" such discussions to an essay talkpage, they should atleast be announced on the central policy talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

, in 2018, you repaired (at least) the following redirect: As part of a broader pharmaceutical drug pricing dispute, further discussion has developed in a section below, with three new editors (Colin, Ronz and myself) expressing concern about these redirects that lead editors looking for policy information to an essay, that in its first paragraph, denies there is a policy and contains misleading information about Featured articles. Do you have anything to add to the suggestions below about restoring those redirects to their historical targets at WP:NOT, as they were established years before by and ? See this history and this history. Ping, who also participated in those redirects and discussions. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPRICES with the edit summary seizing a known policy shortcut (still in use on various talkpages) for a personal essay is inappropriate
 * and indicated on this page the relationship between policy and essay,
 * and retained the redirects from WP:PRICE and WP:PRICES for this page.


 * Thank you for the ping, but I have missed the recent dispute about drug pricing. Generally speaking I am still against changing established policy shortcuts to point to personal essays - atleast not without broad prior consensus. If I remember correctly, I didn't change the other 2 redirects back because they were less commonly used and not directly listed "in use" in WP:NOT anyway - NOPRICES simply seemed to be the most urgent, potentially misleading redirect at the time (but don't quote me on it). GermanJoe (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Move to user space?
Per the brief comments at ANI (Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents), I think this article should be removed back to user space. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Objections? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Under which of the reasons listed in the policy or supplementary guideline would you be moving to user space? Whose user space would you be moving this to? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going off what was said at ANI, and every discussion since. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well by definition an essay doesn't necessarily have widespread consensus and are opinion based and I don't see anything that suggests it contradicts widespread consensus. If you think that only one side is being presented as it's in mainspace you could add your own thoughts to the essay. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the first paragraph is blatantly misleading, as I have demonstrated elsewhere in these discussions (regarding prices in Featured articles). Is it your recommendation that I edit this essay now, or is that best left until after other issues are addressed or subside?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Followup: that discussion is here, but much too long to follow.  Should I need to link to it, is it OK if I create a sub-heading, even though the discussion is closed?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , perhaps propose your edits here first before doing them? If there is silent consensus (as there had been to Ronz before I chimed in) that can be good enough to try and implement. As for the link it is of course OK to link to a closed discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , ah ha, excellent suggestion. But my question is, may I create a new sub-head halfway through the closed discussion (where I gave FA examples) so that I can link to the specific response to the idea that FAs breach NOT?  And, looking deeper, the entire essay is a mess such that editing it would not be a productive use of time.  Is it not reasonable to just submit it to WP:MFD rather than waste time trying to fix something that has no value? Sheesh, wouldn't it be nice to be actually writing articles to improve content instead ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, per the ANI on pricing disputes, where do we stand on simple cleanup of writing (example: The current policy regarding prices --> Policy on prices ... ) This writing gives me a headache. Is it OK to edit grammar? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Another example (some things cannot be unseen!): the first three paras contradict each other: followed by
 * Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products.
 * The current policy regarding prices is outlined in WP:NOTCATALOG:
 * I don't think this essay is salvageable, and I don't think effort should be expended on it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Another example: (Hello, WP:WEIGHT) ... Fixing this essay would be a time-sink. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can report anything which third-party secondary sources report.

Here is my response from another talk page to the allegation about Featured articles. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirects

 * As has been pointed out, it's part of the walled garden, encouraging policy violations and the behavioral problems that have gone with them. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ronz here. I'm most concerned at this history and this history which has changed a redirect for WP:PRICE and WP:PRICES (whose names suggest general price issues) from pointing to What Wikipedia is not to instead pointing to this "personal agenda on drug prices on Wikipedia" page. Barkeep49, I think that is a most egregious change, and should be reverted. -- Colin°Talk 10:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

this is perhaps the most egregious edit I've seen throughout this pricing issue. Blue, you changed two common redirects to a policy page to point instead to an essay that you created. And, this has stood for over three years, meaning we have no way of knowing how many editors were diverted from policy to your opinion. It would be very wise of you to reinstate the redirects to policy as soon as possible. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is especially shocking that, besides redirecting from a policy to an essay, the first line of the essay then further misleads with the statement, "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products." I suggest that Bluerasberry should also review every instance of "What links here" to correct any deception that resulted.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There aren't an awful lot of "what links here" to the redirects, but the first handful I looked at, all predated the change and were used to imply a policy link. I think instead the shortcut-redirect should be reverted back to policy, and what few uses of this page that were made to link to this essay, should be revised to link to the essay directly by name. -- Colin°Talk 14:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's generous of you to do that work, Colin, which I was going to leave to Bluerasberry to perform as a show of good faith. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I haven't made any edits. Only had a peek. There are still edits/reverts/fixes that should be made, and I'm not volunteering to clear up someone else's mess. -- Colin°Talk 16:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pings are iffy, so I notified Bluerasberry of this issue. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirects have come up before (see the section above this). There is nothing wrong with an editor changing the redirect target - doing is endorsed by WP:BRD. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The section above indicates the redirects should be restored. In addition to the editors saying that several years ago, we now have three more. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't spot that, and see that it was agreed the redirects should be restored. Barkeep49, BRD (an essay) does not endorse dishonesty. Changing a redirect that points to community-agreed policy to instead point to the an essay containing personal opinions of editors with openly declared agendas, is frankly outrageous. It is clear the major editors of this article have chosen to ignore the above discussion and consensus. I note at PRICES the change was in fact reverted by Smallbones, and then simply edit warred back to point here. That isn't BRD, but does pretty much sum up how drug prices are being handled on Wikipedia. -- Colin°Talk 19:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See my post in the section above. Barring objection, Barkeep, is it OK to restore the redirects to their original targets.  This is blatantly deceptive. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * and it is absolutely OK to change the redirect targets. And let me remind both of you to comment on content not editors. I understand (really I do) why you're labeling it dishonest and deceptive. But Bluerasberry remains an editor in good standing and there are good faith reasons why he might have changed the targets. Not to mention this all happened years ago. You both have invested extraordinary amounts of time in this area which I is perhaps heightening the strength of your reaction to these redirects. But yes of course by all means change the targets. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC) FYI: my Wikipedia goal for today had been to finish getting an article ready for FLC so I may choose to let further pings sit for a while even as I'm active elsewhere on site.
 * My "this is blatantly deceptive" refers to using old (established) redirects to point to a page that says there is no policy, but I understand your point, and have struck it. (Although WikiBlame doesn't work for me, and I can't even tell who wrote that, so again, it was not aimed at Bluerasberry.)  I am disinclined to correct the redirects until we hear from others, as we don't need more agida at this stage, but I did edit this essay so that the first line is not so blatantly deceptive, and I added a line to the links about the FA rebuttal (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and many of those are in line with policy anyway). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PS,, you may not know you're looking at one of Wikipedia's finest FLC writers :) List of people with epilepsy Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I had not realised the main WP:NOPRICES link had been changed to point here. Barkeep49, editor behaviour is a factor that should not be ignored. You cited BRD but last time I checked there were not two R's in BRD. Bluerasberry was simply edit warring at WP:PRICES and changing the advertised policy short-cut WP:NOPRICES was a dreadful thing to do. The "content" is just words on a wiki page that can be changed in a moment. The actions, the behaviour, the deception, the edit warring, is what should concern us all much more deeply. -- Colin°Talk 21:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you have issues with editor behavior, and it's clear you do, well that's fair enough. The way to handle that is as WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE describes which includes handling conduct problems on user talk pages or at a noticeboard (in this case ANI). Your discovery of this is fresh but the conduct itself happened years ago. As such a polite note on a user talk page acknowledging that it's not exactly current but expressing your concerns would be how I would handle this were I to discover some conduct like this that upset me as it seems to have upset you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I left a note for Bluerasberry three days ago; he has edited since, and has not responded here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now gone back to examine the history. The statement, "WWikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products" has been present in this essay for over four years, and was originally inserted by Bluerasberry in Oct 2015. Next to determine if that was an accurate reflection of WP:NOT in October 2015. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At the point that this page was written, WP:NOTCATALOG (mentioning prices) was a part of policy, so the statement that prefaced this essay, and stood for four years, was false. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way
In correcting the text on this page, I came across this archived discussion, where in 2015, multiple WPMED editors were arguing the same points we are seeing now. There was no consensus in that discussion to proceed, and yet, here we are. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Format of this collection
There are many price discussions in many places and contexts. It is useful to collect them somehow. Currently there is no name for the practice of collecting conversations from multiple topics and putting them on a guide page. As time has passed, we have become able to identify issues which recur in various contexts. Prices is one of them.

Gender identity is another. I compiled a list of discussions about managing gender in biographies on Wikipedia. Some other people edited that list. See it at
 * Manual of Style/Gender identity

I am considering cleaning up the list here somehow. I am not sure what fields to communicate. Perhaps
 * discussion title, from section heading
 * forum of discussion
 * date
 * subjective notes of some sort to describe the discussion

Regardless of any controversy around a topic, I wish that we could find common ground in some best practice for cataloging discussions. Wikipedia has no conversation tagging system for discussions, so the only way a collection like this can exist is if someone manually curates it.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)