I'd like to propose vital articles should be excepted from style rules limitations on the rationale of promoting convenient navigation to and from exceptional articles. Currently they state: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." This generally implies there is no comparative example, and I'd like vital articles to be this comparative standard in order to define the rule's specific meaning. For example, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes with the exception of any vital articles." My Wiki work mostly revolves around overseeing these particular articles and I would much appreciate their universal accessibility -- it would, I feel, be beneficial if all those articles were part of a perceptibly underlying network. Additionally, regarding the potential question of the "See also" section's validity, I would urge consideration of different site browsing styles meaning some users are drawn to the easy nature of this section and use it widely. Thanks. - Thrif (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see any value in listing River in the see also section on the Yangtze article, or anything similar. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It's pointless to list common words like China and River, whether in the See also section or not. See WP:OVERLINK. -Zanhe (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose see also sections should be avoided as much as possible. Navigation templates could include related links. But many vital article titles are so well known that they do not need to be linked. A link in an article should do for some use, and often then that will do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from anything else, WP:VITAL is a totally arbitrary list made up by the half-dozen people who run it; the article that's "vital" to any given reader is the article about whatever topic they're looking for, not the article a self-appointed clique feel is more important than the article about whatever topic they're looking for. ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: That list is massive. Level Five alone intends to have fifty thousand articles. You say your concern is that you want an "underlying network" but that underlying network exists, and it's inherent to the Wiki format My other concern is that the articles subject don't always warrant a "See Also" to an vital article. If someone just met Mohammad Ali in passing, than it would be inappropriate to create a "See Also" link to them. --Deathawk (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If those words are already in the article there is nothing to prevent a reader from clicking on the link at that spot. Scrolling back to it takes but a moment. The "search wikipedia" box is also always available. MarnetteD|Talk 06:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello ... Is this the right place to talk about the recent user interface change which puts pop-ups on the screen when you hover over a wiki link? Regards, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Johanathan. You're referring to the semi-new Page Previews feature (also known as Hovercards). These Village Pump pages are the central location for discussing issues that broadly affect Wikipedia, like Page Previews. If this becomes an extended discussion, and depending on the exact issue, the discussion might shift to a different location. But it's fine to start the discussion here.

Tip: You might want to click Create account at the top of the page. Creating an account is not required, but it makes it easier for us to talk to you and it can make things easier for you as well. Alsee (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I just wanted to register how awful a change I think it is. I respect and commend the utility of the feature; my comments are solely about forcing it on people. Some of us specifically like the Wikipedia interface for its simplicity and lack of movement. An 80-year-old user I know specifically complains about "all that moving stuff" which prevents her using many sites. I agree there is a difficulty in letting people know about the feature, but -- while respecting how hard people must have worked on it -- I think there are other ways to bring it to people's attention which would be adequate and less disruptive. Thanks for reading. Kind regards, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You may be interested in following the discussion at phab:T91201 and mw:Page_Previews/preferences. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"I think there are other ways to bring it to people's attention which would be adequate and less disruptive." Well, some examples of other ways would be nice.... Because I have trouble coming up with alternative ideas. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan. Are you seeing this feature on the English Wikipedia or another Wikipedia? The Page Preview feature is not currently deployed to English Wikipedia, but there is currently an A/B test running. A small set of users may see the feature. If you are seeing the feature as part of the test you can opt-out by clicking the gear in the Page Preview. I've passed along your feedback to the product team. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In April of 2016 there was a Proposal: Enable Hovercards by default. The closing result is phrased as "no consensus" for activating Hovercards, however that appears to be soft phrasing for an effective "consensus against" activating Hovercards. As far as I'm aware, that is the last and only English Wikipedia community consensus on the issue. As far as I have been able to determine this feature is not active (by default) on English Wikipedia.

Jonathan, please provide more information if you are seeing this feature on English Wikipedia. I would be very interested in investigating further. If your concern is that you are seeing this feature on other language versions of Wikipedia, that is a lot more complicated. There can be some discussion of the topic here, and it is possible it could lead to raising the issue elsewhere. However the English Wikipedia Village Pump has no direct authority over decisions for other language versions of Wikipedia. Alsee (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alsee and CKoerner: Yes, this was on English Wikipedia, which I use pretty much all day (it's my default search in the browser), and I made no changes to any configuration locally. There is is a gearwheel on the popup, but it can be off the screen so you can't see it; when disabled it puts "Enable previews" at the bottom of the page after "... Cookie statement Mobile view". It doesn't appear to be controlled by a cookie (I couldn't find it) perhaps it's on the session. The following screengrab (https://pasteboard.co/H6qqxhW.png) which shows an image of Encyclopaedia Britannica inexplicably taking up about half the content area, without any additional text, and with no visible controls. Thanks for interest. Kind regards, Jonathan. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux: thanks, will look there. Jonathan.

Hi TheDJ: Regarding other ways to publicise new features, I think something like a "January's New features, why not try them" top-banner for the first few days of a month (like "Wikivoyage is celebrating 5 years" banner, see https://pasteboard.co/H6qAuxq.png) might be a good idea; it tells everything, without the issues I was critical of. If you click on it, you will find changes, if you don't, you won't. It appears in a predictable place with predictable controls. There would be no surprises or unintelligible user-interface issues. What do you think? Kind regards, Jonathan 82.69.229.22 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan, Yep, it looks like you are seeing the A/B test. I see the issue you mentioned. Again, I'll pass it along to the product team. I've created a task for the team to look at. Good feedback. Thank you.

I'd like to shamelessly mention Tech News, a weekly newsletter contributors and foundation staff publish about tech changes. You can subscribe via a few different methods. Might be something you'd be interested in. Cheers. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[2][3][4]

This is another case where there appears to be a disconnect from talk space guidelines. WP:TPO says that trolling may be removed, but this was not trolling. The IP's intent was to criticize the neutrality of an entire article, not to evoke a negative reaction, as far as can be discerned without mind-reading.

Does this otherwise fall into the "harmful posts" category (TPO bullet 3)? I don't see the harm, and the collapse probably would have been enough to prevent responses to the comment.

If this is considered a legitimate removal case, TPO needs to be updated to bring it in line with common practice. Otherwise, shouldn't we adhere to TPO, or are we all free to remove whatever posts we deem useless? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm unconcerned either way. The post wasn't particularly useful towards improving the article, and I'm not sure it matters much whether it is preserved for posterity or goes away. The current guidelines are sufficient; difference in interpretation of any guideline is going to exist, and you can't make that go away merely by adding more rules. If you disagree, and think that the post was actually useful to the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps starting a meta-discussion and hold a vote to restore it. That sounds like a phenomenal waste of time and energy to me, but you're free to. But no, rules don't need to be ammended because there will always be disagreements over how rules are to be interpreted; it's an endless fools errand to chase down every edge case and demand that rules be rewritten every time there's a disagreement over an odd case. Hard cases make bad law. --Jayron32 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The IP posted and I quote "This article in itself seems racist, and ignorant. It seems to take a stab at calling our president racist, which is completely untrue. How original btw!" .... You Mandruss closed this as "Article talk pages are for improving articles, not attacking them" ...

So please enlighten every person here what part of that IPs comment is helping to improve the article ? ..... The comment IMHO was an attack (and you yourself stated this in the close) and so warranted removal,

Might I suggest you go and do something actually productive instead of continuously arguing over TPO ... it's rather sad. –Davey2010^Talk 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I reiterate the point I made in the earlier discussion. NOTFORUM vios, for example, are not "helping to improve the article", and they generally are collapsed rather than removed. The criterion for removal, therefore, is not solely whether the comment is helping to improve the article.
Please try to moderate your imperious and condescending tone especially when addressing established editors. This editor does not need schooling on the importance of contribution to articles, and I think you're aware of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Attacks aren't collapsed - They're removed (and I will go as far as to say some are revdelled), Point is those sorts of comments aren't helpful and as the article is edited by millions a month I doubt the article could be racial etc .... It's an attack and wholly deserves removal. –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I admit it's been a while since I've do that much in article talk pages, from the little I've seen I don't think things have changed that much. Off-topic commentary is often hatted. But sometimes they are simply deleted when it's a clear cut case and it's the main post itself which is the problem. This tends to happen more in active talk pages where you get a lot of the NOTFORUM stuff. TPO already seems to deal with this well enough, notably while it refers to hatting that part is primarily referring to where there is a on-topic discussion and part of it goes off-topic rather than where the first post is off-topic. Remember one advantage with hatting is that while the discussion may be off-topic in some rare instances it may still be useful in a general sense. Also it may have been referred to by other participants. Finally it's easier for others to assess if the case was more borderline. None of this applies to the random comments people sometimes leave on article talk pages which are sometimes simply deleted. I don't see any real reason we need to add more complexity about when we should or should not delete off-topic commentary. And most complaints I've seen about the deletion of off-topic commentary have not been cases of "I think this material although off-topic is useful and so should not have been deleted" but rather, "I don't think this is supported by policy so it shouldn't have been done", which to me means to me it's not that important to deal with. In this particular case, I do agree with the comments below. While it's very unlikely the comment will be useful, since it was referring to the article it wasn't off-topic so was probably best left as is. Nil Einne (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• The IP was referring to the overall tone of the article, so I don't see how that is an attack or trolling in any way. It can't be a violation of FORUM because he was talking about the article directly, not just the subject matter generally. It wasn't particularly helpful by itself, but it could have started a discussion on what was not neutral about the article. I would not have deleted it and would support restoring it. Polite criticism of an article's tone is absolutely what the talk page is for. I don't see a need to modify policy, btw. I can't help but wonder if that comment had been posted by a long time editor rather than an IP, if someone would still have removed it. The IP was trying to improve the article....by discussing the shortcomings in the exact place he should have been, the article talk page. Again, this is perfectly acceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • How about impolite criticism? How original btw! doesn’t strike me as “polite,” and I fail to see how flatly denying the claims of many sources (calling our president racist […] is completely untrue) is germane. I don’t think being in denial is a NOTFORUM vio, though. The comment wasn’t completely without merit; the article might as well be titled Donald Trump is racist, which (regardless of whether one agrees) would clearly be an unacceptable attack article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • If this thread is limited to discussion of one narrow case, and it has no effect except maybe on some of the very few editors who read it, I agree that it is largely a waste of time and all of us should "go and do something actually productive". Nobody is going to cite this discussion to resolve future such issues, and it would have very little weight if they did. But that was not my intent here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  Well, the point is that you've brought up a specific dispute which your using to ammend a general policy. You've not established that this one dispute is representative of a widespread problem that policy needs to be addressed. With one dispute like this, one side or the other is interpreting the policy wrong; OR neither side may be and this is an edge case for which WP:IAR was intended to deal with. Either way, one single odd case is not a sign that policy needs changing. --Jayron32 16:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • • • Granted, it wasn't as polite as I like, but considering the average tone of discussions about politics, I wouldn't have blinked an eye at a little sarcasm. If that is the most offensive thing that hits that page this week, I would call that a great week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Just to note I've restored the comment pretty much per Dennis Brown - We all percieve things differently but for me if Dennis says it's not an attack then it's not an attack, Anyway reinstated the comment, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Guideline 1 below advises that highly relevant links in a navbox should not be repeated in the "See also" section, whereas guideline 2 below implies that highly relevant links in a navbox should be repeated in the "See also" section (if they are not already in the article's body):

1. MOS:NOTSEEALSO and MOS:NAVLIST both advise: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Similarly, WP:NAVBOX lists as one of the guidelines for good navigation templates: "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."
2. But, a couple of paragraphs later in WP:NAVBOX, we are advised: "Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to articles highly relevant to a particular article. Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia which accounts for around half of readers."

Is this apparent contradiction between guidelines a problem that needs to be fixed? If not, I will continue following guideline 1 above as I always have.

There has already been some discussion of this issue, but nothing that fixed the contradiction mentioned above. These are the major discussions that I could find:

• January 2013: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 9 § Repeating links in See also section: This is mostly a discussion of why guideline 1 above is important.
• November 2015: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 11 § See also and navboxes: This discussion highlights the contradiction between guidelines 1 and 2 above, but the discussion did not lead to fixing the contradiction.
• February 2017: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 12 § RfC: remove the proscription against previously-linked terms in the "See also" section?: "Summary: There is strong consensus against the proposed change" of removing guideline 1 above.
• July 2017: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 12 § A suggested edit in the "See also" guideline: This is another proposal to remove guideline 1 above (especially the part about navboxes), apparently with no consensus.

Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have an answer on how to resolve the issue, but I believe that the text of (1) above has been functionally in Wikipedia's guidelines for at least 10 years if not more; that may explain the contradiction as this would have predated the mobile version of Wikipedia by some many years; the later addition to deal with the lack of navboxes in the mobile version may have not thought to change the earlier guidance. --Jayron32 03:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think we need to go for guideline 2, and reword 1. Jayron makes a very good point. The wording appeared in MOS:NAVLIST with this edit. Previously it was "see Wikipedia:Navigational templates". The wording in MOS:NOTSEEALSO appeared with this edit in 2009. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• There is no contradiction that needs to be fixed. Links to articles highly relevant to a particular article should not be in the See Also section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Either you just made an ironic joke or I'm not correctly understanding what you're trying to say, because as I read it, your second sentence above contradicts your first sentence, since the first sentence says there is no contradiction that needs to be fixed, and the second sentence seems to advocate in favor of guideline 1 above ("the 'See also' section should not repeat links" in navboxes) and against guideline 2 above ("Do not rely solely on navboxes for links" but rather put relevant links in the "See also" section for mobile users), which implies fixing the contradiction between guidelines 1 and 2 in favor of guideline 1. Biogeographist (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I just noticed that there is a current (January 2018) discussion of this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § "See also" section and navigation boxes where, again, there is no apparent consensus to change guideline 1 above. Biogeographist (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds like the problem is with the mobile version. How about fixing it to show the actual wikipedia instead of some cut down extract thereof? --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I support the idea of Khajidha. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha's suggestion would certainly fix the aforementioned contradiction, but I imagine that there may be technical or other obstacles to that fix? Biogeographist (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I want to make sure I understand the underlying issue... the older guidance was intended to limit overlinking. The idea was that if an article already contained a link to another article (whether in the main text or in a navbox), then there was no need to link to that other article again in the "see also" section. However, this instruction seems to have caused a problem when it comes to the mobile view, because mobile view does not display navboxes. This means that a reader will not see a link that is in a navbox (but not in the main text). So... to account for this, the newer instruction was written to tell editors not to rely on navbox links, and to repeat the link in the "see also" section. Is this an accurate summary of the issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Yes, it seems to me that you understand the issue perfectly. I think you are also right to point out that the practical effect of guideline 1 above is to minimize the number of links in the "See also" section, whereas the practical effect of guideline 2 above is to increase the number of links in the "See also" section. Biogeographist (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

OK... then perhaps we can narrow down the issue... can we agree that the guidance to not repeat links that are in the article TEXT is fine (for both desktop and mobile versions)... and that the potential conflict is purely with links that are ONLY in a navbox?

If so... I think it would be helpful to know WHY the developers of the mobile view decided to NOT include navboxes (we need to understand that decision in order to decide which guidance is best). Does anyone know? Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I don't even care why they did it. Either a mobile device has the ability to display the entirety of wikipedia (in which case it should do that) or it doesn't (in which case it shouldn't be used to view wikipedia). --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrator Mark Hetherington said in a 2016 Quora post titled "Why are Navboxes (navigation templates) not displayed on Wikipedia's mobile website?" that navboxes were excluded from mobile view because they "can't be reliably restyled for mobile", but as I read it, his post also suggests that exclusion of navboxes from mobile view may be a temporary kludge until the code of templates such as navboxes is updated to be compatible with responsive web design, which implies that guideline 2 above addresses a situation that may be temporary. Biogeographist (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah... then perhaps the solution is for our guidance to note that it IS a temporary fix... effectively saying: “because navboxes currently don’t appear in mobile view, we must TEMPORARILY add navbox only links (ie those that appear in navboxes but not in the main text) to the “see also” section. These should be removed once the developers figure out how to incorporate navboxes into mobile view.” Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? The onus should be on mobile device designers to make sure that the devices can handle this site, not on us to fit their capabilities. --Khajidha (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't. Mobile device designers are not going to design around accomodating a single website (and who will ask them, anyway? We only have control over us). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(I wrote this before seeing Jo-Jo Eumerus's comment but I will post it even though it repeats the point of that comment:) I don't think the reasoning in Khajidha's last comment is quite right: the most relevant actors here are not "mobile device designers" but rather web standards developers. And I imagine that in general the adaptation mostly happens in the other direction: the developers of MediaWiki and Wikipedia try to adapt to web standards (most notably, in this case, standards for responsive web design), and not vice versa, since the developers of MediaWiki and Wikipedia have little influence on web standards.

A problem that I see with Blueboar's suggestion (that editors temporarily add links to the "See also" section only to remove them later when navboxes are added to mobile view) is that it doubles the effort required of editors: first they have to figure out which links to add to the "See also" section, and then later they have to figure out which links to remove. A consistent (not temporary) guideline would be a much more efficient use of editors' time and brainpower. Biogeographist (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

My mobile device can be set to "desktop site" allowing me to do anything that I can do here on my laptop computer. Is this not a common feature of mobile devices? And, if it is, why don't people just use that and not have to worry about what the mobile version can or can't do?--Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Khajidha: In your first comment above you seemed to propose fixing the mobile version of Wikipedia, and later I pointed out that Mark Hetherington's Quora post suggested that might happen in the future; in your last comment you seemed to imply that readers should abandon the mobile version in favor of the desktop version, but I don't see any evidence that will happen in the future. What I really want to know is what editors should be doing about "See also" links: following guideline 1 or 2 above, or doing something else? Biogeographist (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say follow the "do not duplicate" guidance as the effect on mobile devices is not our problem.--Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The updating of the code for the viewing of templates on mobile seems a priority, if the code can be fixed (the templates are maps of the site for the main topic, and are valuable additions to anyone viewing them, desktop or mobile). Until then some links should be allowed on See also. Not every link in a navbox template can be listed in See also, for space and formatting consideration, but should rather be judged on a case by case basis (some links good, overlinking not so much). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is my opinion, which may be controversial but I feel quite strongly about this. I am an administrator with 50,000 edits in many areas of this encyclopedia. I complete at least 95% of my editing on Android smartphones and I always use the fully functional desktop site with very few problems. Yes, I have tried the mobile site from time to time over the years, and have consistently found it vastly inferior to the desktop site on a smartphone. The desktop site works exactly like a miniature desktop computer on my Android smartphone. People have said I must have unusually good vision. That is baloney. I have amblyopia, cataracts, glaucoma and vitreal detachment. Despite my vision problems, I find it very easy to edit Wikipedia using the desktop site on an Android smartphone. So, my recommendation is to rename the desktop site to the "fully functional site" and shut down the inadequate mobile site. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "mobile view" is not very useful. I also usually switch to the so-called "desktop view." The mobile format is unnecessary and archaic, as these days most mobile devices can deal with fully functional web sites. I wouldn't waste resources on it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm partially with Cullen328 on this; when it first started, the mobile site was a Good Idea, as mobile devices were of lesser power, and a "dumbed down" site was needed to work and display properly on mobile phones at the time. I never use the mobile site on my last two phones because modern equipment and internet strength have evolved to make the desktop site work fine. I don't oppose the existence of the mobile site for people who genuinely prefer it, but I hate that I frequently have to override Wikipedia's default when editing from my phone. --Jayron32 13:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I don't see a consensus here that would lead me to change my editing behavior, much less lead to a change in the existing guidelines, but I will keep all of these perspectives in mind during my editorial decision making. We will see what the future brings regarding the limitations of Wikipedia's mobile view. The predominant opinion here seems to be that the lack of navboxes in mobile view is a problem that should be fixed in one of various ways. Biogeographist (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if this conversation is still open, but why not technically change navboxes so they can be displayed on mobile? This is already the case for Dutch Wikipedia. Also WP:NOTSEEALSO should be amended as mobile readers aren't exactly a minority. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 09:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: One answer to your question "why not technically change navboxes so they can be displayed on mobile?" is in the Quora post by Mark Hetherington cited above. Regarding amendment of WP:NOTSEEALSO, it would not be necessary if/when navboxes are added to mobile view, and there does not seem to be consensus for such a change otherwise: see opposing opinions above and in linked discussions above (most recently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § "See also" section and navigation boxes). Biogeographist (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User ****** wrote that the Toronto Sun is an unreliable citation. I looked in Wikipedia and it doesn't confirm this. Is the Toronto Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper of Toronto ok to use as a citation in Wikipedia? Vanguard10 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be better to ask WP:RS/N :) .--cyclopia^speak! 22:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And notify users if you are going to discuss them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have redacted her username. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun certainly is one of the least reliable "newspaper" in Canada, and is modeled after The Sun of the UK. It's a tabloid, not a serious source of news. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to reuse content from Everipedia with attribution? I remember Bazzi (musician) had a few lines which duplicate those on the Everipedia page (his page on Everipedia was created when he was a minor social media celebrity but would have failed the GNG), but those revisions were deleted for copyright infringement. Jc86035 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No... unless we are directly quoting a source, we should never simply cut and paste. Instead, our editors should rewrite the material so it presents the same information using different words, and then cite the sources that support it. (However, in this case, don’t even do that, since Everipedia is not considered reliable). Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

as Blueboar suggests, the question should not arise because Everipedia is a crowd-sourced site and no open wiki is reliable. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A slight addendum to the above, with basically the same advice: technically, text in the public domain OR text which has been licensed under the proper copyleft licenses to be compatable with Wikipedia's own license are technically OK to reuse, HOWEVER, you'll find that most of it would be improper to use at Wikipedia anyways for one of two reasons 1) the source itself is not reliable, or 2) The material is not written in a tone or style which is expected at Wikipedia, and would need a complete rewrite anyways to conform to Wikipedia standards. Given that, it is rarely (read: basically never) acceptable to simply copy text and put it wholesale in Wikipedia even if there is no legal hurdle against doing so. It is always (read: always) better to simply write original text which references the reliable source. That is, however, academic in this specific case. Everipedia isn't reliable as a source, so you're best just finding better sources and writing original text anyways. --Jayron32 12:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

OK... there is a distinction between “allowed” and “should”... we are allowed to copy material that is in the public domain, but that does not mean we should do so. Simply copy pasting stuff from another website is intellectually lazy, even if allowed. Plus, if you always rephrase in your own words, you never have to worry about copyright. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I can’t imagine that we would or could consider Everipedia a reliable source. I would suggest taking this to WP:RSN for further discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The talk above here about Everipedia being a reliable source or not is irrelevant. Let's assume you find some text on Everipedia that is well-written and well-sourced. You still can't use that because it was probably copied from another website, an ebook or social media. So copyrighted. And Everipedia does not care. Whatever you find on Everipedia that is not also on Wikipedia should be assumed to be copyrighted content. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As the title says. I really liked it back when I could see examples of people from certain ethnic groups/diaspora. Why was it forbidden? --Spafky (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up the discussion, but there was a lengthy policy debate about this a few years back, and the consensus was that a) the galleries were a source of constant squabbling, discord, and disruption, and more importantly 2) The decision as to who's picture best to represent a particular ethnicity was open to rife abuse and amounted to original research. I'll try to find the discussion. --Jayron32 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:DUE regarding who was selected also. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 13 is the original discussion that closed them down; it was from November 2015; though there had been several other discussions beforehand that led to that final discussion on the matter. --Jayron32 16:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

One issue was Verifiability... how could the reader be sure that the person or people depicted in the image were actually FROM the nation or region in question (and not a tourist/visitor from some other country)? Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, most of the galleries were of famous people who had citations in their article which clearly established their self-identification with the people groups; that was one thing we got right. However, there was still the problem that the sampling of people represented the ethnic groups well, a host of problematic no true Scotsman arguments, and the way that the specific choices could be used to influence WP:NPOV in some really bad ways (such as, for example, carefully choosing people of a particular skin tone, to represent a people group, etc.) It was all too much. --Jayron32 17:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"They are not black enough" being one particular argument I recall. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the RFC linked at WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES was the last one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While not "galleries" you can still find many of these images categorized on commons: for example in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States's sub cats. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yelysavet has been deleting scores of interlanguage-links from articles. Apparently without checking whether they had been or even can be correctly transferred to Wikidata.

User:Andy Dingley and myself have pointed out to him that relevant links pointing to the respective articles in sister Wikipedias have been lost by his wholesale removals.

I have brought this to the administrators noticeboard but was not able to evoke much interest. Instead I was advised to post the issue here.

I am not sure what policies and common practices apply and what to do about this.

I personally would like to see the Interwiki-links restored and I would appreciate your input on this matter.

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC) between

Hi.

So, please imagine this case: Editor A and B are in a dispute. Nobody else is in that dispute. Admin C protects the disputed page. But then, other things happen and Admin C blocks Editor A for his or her conduct in that said dispute, for a period equal to or longer than the page protection length, and revokes his talk page access. Naturally, at this stage, Editor B has no way of engaging in any sort of discussion, which was the purpose of the protection.

Now what should happen to the protection?

• Should it be left intact even though it serves no purpose?
• Should it be extended to by the period of Editor A's block plus the original protection length?
• Should it be lifted?

Of course, I am open-minded to this issue not being a wholly trinary case.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In your first option you say that, at that point, the page protection "serves no purpose". First, A was blocked for conduct, not for being wrong in the content dispute. I posit that most often B would still need a cool down period too, and that is the "purpose" of leaving the page protection for the time being. B should realise it is not about "winning" a dispute, and cooling down instead of rushing to convert the page to their preferred version is usually best. B can, if they're sure they're "right" on the content issue (when what they consider the "wrong version" got protected), request to implement the improvements they suggest via an ((editprotected)) template on the talk page, and someone uninvolved would evaluate. They can request the page protection be lifted, if it is very obvious that A had disrupted mainspace (i.e. in the article) before being blocked. Also in this case, someone else would evaluate whether the requested unprotection is justified. But generally I suppose B cooling down for the period of the initial page protection period, and making themselves useful elsewhere in the mean while, being the best option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Hi. Thanks for the reply. I am afraid I find it biased, biased and biased, as it assumes Editor B has the following attributes:

• He or she cannot edit already, because of protection
• He or she wants to edit and the current state isn't to his or her satisfaction
• He or she needs to cool down in the first place
• That cooling down is even possible when he or she has permission to edit other places (Your very strong wording draws a picture of jerk from Editor B. Such a person is already a high risk that might do other not-so-okay things elsewhere.)

Also, ((editprotected)) suggestion is not helpful: In case of a dispute a page is fully protected. Only admins can respond to edit request and they explicitly avoid responding to the edit requests from B, per their "no wheel-warring" mandate, that it is not a good idea to defeat the purpose of a protection by permitting Editor B get his or her way anyway and the controversial "wrong version" issue to which you alluded.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: what a nonsense you're writing now (very strong wording intended). I implied nor pre-supposed any of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"I implied nor pre-supposed any of that." Then, are you saying a person who can edit, doesn't want to edit, does not need to cool down, and is not struck by any measure that either eases or facilitates his or her cooling down still needs to cool down? Same question about "winning". —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, what nonsense: I implied nothing of the kind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoa! No need to bite. I didn't come here with the intention of talking nonsense. If you I feel have grossly misinterpretted your comments, then I am afraid your comments are susceptible to gross misinterpretation. But let's not escalate the discussion like what happens in content disputes. At worst, we can bow out and agree to disagree. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A page protection does not mean only those previously engaged should discuss the issue. In fact, B can use the time to invite neutral editors D, E and F to give their input, hopefully reaching a consensus before the protection expires. Plus, A's block does not mean they or their sympathizers won't restart the edit-warring if protection is lifted without a consensus on how to handle to issue. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Hi. I can clearly see there is more experience behind your answer. Here is a couple of things though:

• You argued against option 1. Still, that begs the question: do you endorse option 2 or 3?
• Is a consensus established in absence of Editor A even valid? I am just asking; this not a rhetorical question. Because there are arguments in favor and against it. One is that an in absentia consensus does not resolve the dispute, for Editor A can argue that if "I were there, I would have argued my case successfully." Furthermore, it does not improve the relation between A and B. The counter-argument is: Editor B's privilege to participate has been revoked because of his or her own failure to use it. But then again, if he or she has lost the privilege to be part of the consensus, the protection is not necessary either.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

SoWhy's reply seems perfectly compatible with option 1. I don't see in what sense they "argued against option 1"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I argued for option 1: The protection (and its length) are not void just because one editor is (forcibly) absent. And consensus is not valid or invalid based on whether certain people participated or not. If A disqualified themselves from editing because of his behavior after the protection, they have no leg to stand on claiming a consensus invalid. After all, they removed themselves from the discussion by behaving like they did after protection was set. Consider this to understand my point: What if A was not blocked but chose to go offline for a few days. Should we also wait for them to return to find a consensus? And if so, why?

As for the other part, I already noted why protection should not be lifted, mainly because A's block alone neither means they won't come back (as socks) nor that others won't "fight" their battle for them. Regards SoWhy 14:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I also see why I thought you argued against it: When you said "they won't come back", you actually meant WP:EVADE. Alright, that's a lot clearer now. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are a couple of other things though:

• When an edit war is resolved by blocking one of the parties, no page protection is enforced out of the fear of WP:EVADE or illegitimate canvassing. Hence, your argument seems to permit a flaw.
• There is still room for option 2.
• What if these other who "fight their war for them" actually fight fair? Isn't assuming good faith a policy here? Even better, these additional editors might actual improve other areas of the article or improve the disputed area to the point that the dispute becomes moot.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Re. "Is a consensus established in absence of Editor A even valid" – taking this as an example (editor A "indeffed for undisclosed paid editing" and for "plenty of WP:NOTGETTINGIT" during page protection), any consensus "established in absence of Editor A" would be valid. So it largely depends on circumstances (in different circumstances it may be better to involve the A editor in reaching consensus). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hence, my message above. —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Codename Lisa: Sorry, it's clear that you have a specific case in mind. I'm afraid that speaking in the general without being able to review the specific case you are disputing is not helpful here. If you can refer us to the specific case (rather than your partial characterization of it) we can review it and speak intelligently on it. --Jayron32 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, Jayron32.

None of us come here because one day we wake up and think "Wow! I wonder what happens if an admin did such-and-such." But I can guarantee that I am NOT here seeking appeal to another admin's decision under the facade of a general question. If you feel I have a certain case in my mind, all you have to do is to ignore that feeling and answer generally.

But then again, I can definitely say the same thing about the other participants here. Nobody took each of my three recommended couses of action to analyze its pros and cons individually and objectively. Instead:

• Francis Schonken said highly judgmental things about a totally imaginary editor, for which I had supplied no previous data whatsoever. I shudder to think what this could imply. He assumed bad faith by default, in violation of WP:AGF.
• SoWhy's reply is an example of behavior for which Wikipedia admins have gained notoriety. People outside Wikipedia often judge us and I hear their judgments without letting them know I am their target. One of the comments on admins here is that they go to a ridiculous length and breadth to avoid disagreeing with existing policies and their fellow admins, to the point that if two admins do completely opposite and comflicting things, they are ready to swear that they agree with what both did, and their actions are in no way contradictory. And they are not wrong too. SoWhy is very careful to totally discourage the idea of there being the slightest flaw in the existing policy, so much so that intially, it is not obvious whether he is against option 1 or in favor of it.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Re. "said highly judg[e]mental things about a totally imaginary editor" – wrong in every direction, that's why I called the reply nonsense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And yet you do not make any attempt to correct that wrong. Come on now, Village Pump is not about winning, so there is no need to feel you have lost. It is about intellectually positive exchange. So, there is no need to feel your dignity is smeared. At least, that's not the intention here. Also, "judgmental" is correct; there is no "e" between "g" and "m". —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Lisa, I don't understand why you've responded with hostility to everyone who has tried to respond to your inquiry. The only one who's failed to assume good faith here is you, and this comment is frankly bordering on personal attacks. If you're trying to prod the participants into some kind of realization about an error in policy that you think needs to be corrected, you are doing a transparently bad job of it. Nonetheless, I'll add my insight into the scenario you posited, and I hope that if you need to respond you will not assume I am your enemy as you seem to have done with everyone else here. If you think I've made an errant assumption in my reply I'm happy to discuss, but please don't assume I'm jumping to conclusions. You posted an interesting but somewhat vague scenario (not "wholly trinary" as you aptly put it) and we're all doing our level best here.

I would try my very best in this scenario to not block either of the editors if I've already protected the page, though I acknowledge this is a possibility. Given the exact scenario I would not automatically modify the protection. Responding to your suggestions point-by-point:

1. I would not assume that leaving the page protected serves no purpose. That could be the case, depending on the circumstances. It could just as easily be the case that the remaining editor is still trying to add unsuitable content, or perhaps the profile raised by the dispute has attracted other editors and discussion is proceeding. There could be reasons to keep the protection just as easily as there could be reasons to lift it; it's impossible to answer definitively given the generality of the scenario.
2. I can however say for certain that I would not extend the protection as a result of one participant's block, as it is effectively sanctioning the other editor as well, and that is pointlessly punitive. Something along the lines of what SoWhy said, that one editor behaving themselves into a block ought not to cause an impediment to any other editor, insofar as we can avoid doing so. And as a side note if the blocked user were to use their own talk page while blocked to try to participate in the discussion anyway, I would warn them once before revoking talk page access. Although in your scenario talk page access was already revoked, so this doesn't apply.
3. Again, no, not automatically. See #1.

Full protection is not a cookie-cutter solution, it's a response normally to complicated editing issues that have failed to be resolved through other methods, and as such it's likely a bad idea to suggest that the resolution of any situation involving full protection can be compared to any other such situation. As for your comments about (my flavouring) admins falling over themselves to agree with each other, I see that as less about avoiding the perception of disagreement and more about there being a general overarching consensus about how our policies and guidelines are to be applied. Although I do understand that that's not how it looks to some. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And to the edit-conflicted comment: this isn't Americapedia; "judgemental" is a perfectly valid spelling in other flavours of English. It even says so in the link you provided. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"If you're trying to prod the participants into [...]". I categorically said there is no such thing.

"you've responded with hostility to everyone". Five years ago, I would have been embarrassed and would have wasted no time to apologize upon reading this. But five years of experience tells me that admins such as yourself simply enjoy preaching and perhaps five years of humbleness on my parts have been a mistake that emboldened your kind. There was no hostility. There was no personal attacks. And WP:NPA isn't meant to be an excuse to suffocate criticism of criticable conduct.

The rest of what you wrote. Didn't read. I doubt there is anything intellectual in them. Alright! I have held back long enough! Clearly we are not having an intellectual debate under this thread; never had. All because you are doing what admins always do: Playing priest and calling people "sinners". Five years ago, when I came here, admins were nothing short of holy to me. Now, most of the Wikipedians with whom I enjoyed working have left; those who have stayed often refrain from entering discussions, which are now markedly more bitter. Admins are supposed to be role models; instead, they are ordinary Wikipedians with extra power, no oversight, and overwhelming need for oversight. WP:BEANS illustrates the behavior seen in babies, not sensible mature people. So, when I say no prodding is intended, and you level that exact same accusation, you not a sensible mature person, let alone admin-worthy.

Enraged, heartbroken, and mistreated,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am unwatching this page. Please refrain from pinging or coming to my talk page about it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm sad that you didn't read any of the part of my comment which actually offered input on your question, I was looking forward to your feedback. But I'm going to stand by the assertion that there's only one person playing "holier-than-thou" in this thread, and I still don't understand why. I'm assuming you're not going to read this anyway, and by your request I'm not pinging you.

Does anyone else want to continue this discussion? I do think it's an interesting scenario. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You have given a few facts about the real or hypothetical case. Each case would inevitably have much more that is very relevant to the answer to your question. So the premise that an answer is determinable from the facts that you gave is incorrect. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• My only comment is this: the fact that the article was protected is but a TEMPORARY inconvenience for Editor B... sure, he/she can not edit the article RIGHT NOW, but that restriction will change SOON. Any changes that need to be made CAN be made... everyone just needs to have some patience. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is about Opera (web browser). There's a simple answer: go to the admin who protected the page (in this case, me) and talk to them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Surprise! I had a change of heart and I came back! (Not really; I was watching your contribution log.) The "Opera (web browser)" case was one of the many cases that made me file this request. But let me be clear about one thing: If I wanted that article unprotected, the one thing I wouldn't have done is to come here, for the very simple reason that it is unlikely to get fast results here. Village Pump discussions often take a long time; weeks maybe. Plus, if that was my intention, I'd have done something to grab your attention before (not after) the protection expires.

Seriously, theories of conduct in Wikipedia are sometimes very movie-like. —Codename Lisa (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa. I think my general point still stands. Every case has its own nuances so it's hard to formulate a general guideline. For example, for me, if one side turns out to be a sock, that's an automatic unprotect (if I remember). If one editor has left an unanswered post on the talk page before being blocked I'm less likely to unprotect. If the dispute has attracted more editors after the block I'll take a look at the talk page. That's why I think talking to the protecting admin is the best first course of action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your no-nonsense no-sidetalk straight-down-to-business answer. 👍 Of course, per Wikipedia policies, talking to the protecting admin is mandatory, unless there is evidence of him being on extended absence. In case of "Opera (web browser)" I certainly do not want compromise my integrity by damaging the olive branch that I offered and you took into consideration. Hence, whether its protection is removed, left untouched, or extended, I certainly don't want to be part of the decision-making process.

Here is the thing though: I have been on the other side of the protection before. You see, there was once a dispute in a template. It was fully protected. I contacted the protecting admin and asked the protection to be dropped to Template Editor level, so that I can edit it. I assurred him that I don't intend to touch the disputed region, which would cost me my Template Editor privilege. He kindly told me that he wouldn't believe me doing such a thing, but because full protection in case of a dispute is the policy anyway, he wouldn't oblige.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And is that template still protected? Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

All options listed are acceptable. It's a case of Admin discretion. On examining a situation, the Admin could conclude that the block fully resolved the problem and that the initial protection wasn't necessary or appropriate anymore. One could equally conclude that B's edits to the article were part of the conflict, and the protection stays in place for B to cool down or seek collaborative input, or any other reason. (One could simply leave protection in place as an inaction-default.) One could also conclude that A WILL be returning to the article, that resolving the situation WILL require discussion, for example some sort of NPOV resolution between A's POV and B's POV might be needed (hopefully with outside input), and that the protection needs to lock down the article long enough for those discussions to occur. It all depends on how the Admin reads the particular situation. Alsee (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS, notifying all editors who participated in a previous AFD is generally considered allowed, especially when little time has passed since the last nomination. But what if the last AFD closed as straight keep with no delete !votes except the nominator? Then notifying all participants would mean alerting all people who argued to keep the article even though you would not exclude anyway (assuming both AFDs are started by the same person). Is it still allowed to notify those users based on CANVASS's appropriate notification rule or is it now votestacking because you can not avoid notifying people who already expressed an opinion (but who might change it given the new arguments)? Regards SoWhy 14:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as no one is excluded, notifying all previous contributors to a discussion in a neutral manner is not canvassing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done such notifications sometimes when people contested my deletions, and never has anyone complained about it. I am minded to agree that so as long as you aren't leaving off some users it should be proper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Votestacking (trying to establish your desired result by selective notifications) is only an issue if your list of notified users is intentionally chosen by the expected result. "Everyone who participated in the most recent relevant discussion" is a truly neutral criterion, even if the discussion went in your favor. Do make sure the nominator of the original discussion is aware of the new discussion (not an issue if this same user is the nominator of the second discussion). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• What they said. If the criteria (everyone) and the method (without imposing a viewpoint in the notification) are neutral, then it isn't canvassing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• The most efficient way to resolve an issue is generally by people already familiar with the subject. It is perfectly appropriate to make an unbiased notification of an previous appropriate and unanimous consensus. The only way I see a problem is if there is some other problem involved. For example if it turns out that the unanimous discussion was itself a canvassed/meatpuppet fanclub voting to keep their favorite band. Then the notification would be re-canvassing of the original canvassed group. That would warrant (at minimum) a stern canvassing warning, and as a closer I'd certainly evaluate it as a re-canvassed group. But that is a corner case. Notifying a unanimous consensus is, in general, appropriate. Alsee (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Background

Given recent disruption caused by non-admin closures of WP:AFD, I am proposing that non-admin closures/relistings be banned except in very limited circumstances. The most obvious exception being when someone withdraws their own nomination (there may be one or two other exceptions but that's the only one that comes to mind for me). Here are two recent ANIs where someone has created disruption by closing an AfD Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive976#Many_non-admin_AfD_closures_by_User:Jdcomix & Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Inappropriate_AfD_closure_by_number_of_votes. This seems to be a recurring issue and I think this is the best way to deal with it. I understand that admins are busy and others try to help, but it is actually creating more work when someone has to go back and review poor closings/relistings.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose - We do have some problems, but most non-admin closers do fine. What happens is sometimes a new closer comes in and won't listen to feedback, or non-admin closes AFDs that they shouldn't close. Policy already states they should only close the most obvious AFDs. If they do this, closing those that do not require a lot of accountability, then they are helping. Admin have higher accountability due to policy, but we aren't smarter by virtue of the bit. Once a non-admin shows they aren't accountable or receptive, then they just need to be taken to ANI and topic banned from closing anything. Thankfully, those are rare cases, which would make changing policy a bad idea as we would be missing out on the good work of most non-admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Dennis - we have means to deal with the bad apples, but the process is otherwise fine. --Masem (t) 02:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Those two examples look like the system is working. Someone steps out of line, they get taken to ANI. It seems we've got quite diligent folks observing and watching AfDs, so it doesn't seem too drastic of an issue. Each case appears to be specific to the user, and I wouldn't want to paint all NACs with a broad brush, especially when they do so much good. I do think there's a chance that an NAC can fly under the radar, if folks aren't aware of who all the sysops are, so I could support a bot auto-labeling NACs when they happen. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a baby and bathwater approach. There isn't a widespread problem at AfD with NAC's except in rare cases. Given the ratio of non-problematic NAC's versus problematic NAC's is vanishingly small, it is best to deal with it on a case by case basis. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems to come up about once a year, maybe a bit more. It does not pass because of the fundamental open editing ethos of Wikipedia. So, until Wikipedia is no longer Wikipedia, it will not pass. Suggest it be added to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Jbh ^Talk 02:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe that in the legal world they say "Hard cases make bad law". If some non-admin is closing things inappropriately, deal with that person, or ask for a re-opening. There's no need for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Opposeas too Draconian. It has to be noted that there are non-admins who make correct closures and this would bring that to a halt. MarnetteD|Talk 02:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:NOSE. Non-admin XfD closures are not causing significant disruption (as far as I can tell), and I don't see any reason we should prevent experienced editors without the bit from assessing consensus on XfDs. Indeed, there are some non-admin editors I'd trust to assess consensus better than certain uers with the bit! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 03:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - admins are vetted for their ability to interpret community consensus. It makes sense to leave closing deletion discussions, which decide whether or not a specific sysop tool is used, to those in the sysop group. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per ajr. It's been mentioned in recent RfAs that one of the big things the community wants more admins for is for AfD closures, and there is a general sense that the current quality of NACs is low at AfD, and wanting more sysops to deal with it. WP:Relist bias is probably the best essay on the subject as it relates to AfD and relisting, but the general principles are the same. The things that non-admins should feel comfortable closing aren't the things that are taking up much time anyway: clear cut keeps. Anything beyond that, should be an admin call per our guidance. There are plenty of places that are more NAC-friendly (I was a frequent RM closer before I got the bit, and RM is probably the most NAC-friendly environment we have on en.wiki), but AfD really isn't one of them.
  People like NACing there as it seems like an easy way to get experience for RfA, but it usually isn't even that, as someone will either make a bunch of dumb closes and get opposed on the grounds of general annoyance without citing diffs or the closes will be so boring that no one will really care. I see no real negatives to this proposal for the community or for the individuals closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - if I wasn't able to do NACs, I probably wouldn't have wanted to become an admin, and if you read my RfA and TP archives, I certainly wasn't perfect as a closer, and still am not (I'm certainly not much better at avoiding completely unnecessary run-ons ). We should give people a chance. If they do a bad job and aren't receptive to feedback, then deal with them individually. I'd say most NACs are probably fine. ansh666 08:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The only privilege admins should have is the direct use of the extra tools in the admin toolkit. Closing discussions should merely require a keyboard and (optionally) a brain. If a user is causing a problem, handle that as you would any other dispute or source of disruption. --Jayron32 16:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This would need evidence of sustained and pervasive disruption, which does not mean two recent ANI threads. See also availability heuristic. GMG^talk 16:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose--Needless policy-expansion.Echo GMG.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Bad" closes are not limited to non-admins, and all can be corrected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The only reason admins are the primary closers is that they have the tools needed to delete if that's the consensus. Admins are also called on at AN to evaluate consensus but there, like here, any editor in good standing can and should be able to do it. The only practical reason for non-sysops to not close "delete" results is the possibility that they can't find a sysop who's willing to go along, with resulting drama and disruption. If we had a rule that admins had to enforce non-sysop "delete" closures without dithering (and without fear of being criticized), I'd be fine with that. This should be a community decision; not a sysop-filtered one. (Which is not to criticize admins in the slightest; this is just a comment on this being a wiki, not on admins.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - As mentioned above, this is a very bad idea in general. Admins are already overloaded with work, and in many cases don't have time to close AfD discussions (which can end in Keep/Merge/Redirect/No Consensus outcomes, none of which require sysop involvements). While there are occasional issues with non-admin closures, these are relatively small in proportion to the number of good ones (and remember that even admins sometimes make questionable closes too, hence WP:DRV). As for the issues with users making questionable closes, this is better resolved through other means specifically meant for that particular user, as opposed to a blanket ban on NACs, the vast majority of which are constructive. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've closed and relisted AfD discussions. I've made a few mistakes starting out (see here and here), but I am happy to listen and correct my errors. It becomes a problem when folks cannot listen to constructive criticism. We should be looking at how many 'naccers' there are on average and how many of them are causing problems. Hopefully the numbers should reveal the actual extent of the problem. !dave 08:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this and the alternate proposal. The few non-admin closing errors are easily corrected. It seems the reduced workload for admins by having non-admin closers and relisters far outweighs the work created by an occasional error. That being said, I personally have never closed an AfD as there is no rush, I'm happy to wait for an admin to get around to it. I wouldn't encourage another non-admin to start doing this unless they are trying to establish a case for future RfA. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm opposing this because I believe we can handle it on a case-by-case basis. That said however, because maintenance areas are very clearly a playground for new and/or inexperienced users and those who simply enjoy the power of being 'anyone who can tinker with Wikipedia's back office', we must be more firm in asking them to refrain from NAC until they are more competent, or face a T-ban from NAC. Anyone who makes NAC to gain 'experience' in order to become an admin should already know enough about reading consensus at AfD without messing about with it. Anyway, that's how I learned about it, and I didn't close or need to close any before I ran for the bit. I had nominated a few hundred though and watched them to see what happened to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's disappointing to see my essay, WP:Relist bias, being used to support non-admins being barred from making closes over a wide class. The real issue is poor NACs, not NACs in general. We have plenty of non-admins who are fine closers, and many of our experienced admin closers got their starts as non-admin closers (myself included, though I've not been particularly active closing discussions recently). If non-admins make a mistake, try talking to them. This step is often skipped in favor of complaining about their action, but usually, a quick word can make a difference. If the non-admin is particularly stubborn in refusing to listen to advice from experienced editors and makes persistent mistakes, then that's a behavioral issue that can be dealt with as usual. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

How about we make it so that NACs/relistings can only take place after 8 days, as opposed to the ordinary 7? I know NOTBURO and CREEP are concerns, but this would temper the super rushed attitudes of many non-admin closers. ansh666 02:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• This still seems to be fixing a problem that doesn't really exist. The current system seems to be working fine, so I'm hesitant to make the policy more complicated for a problem that is already under control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) If we are going to address hasty closes we might as well say best practice is that no one close an AfD until it rolls into the old log. This was suggested at WT:AFD#When did AfDs go from running for 7 days to 6 and a bit days? because of a perceived problem with admins closing AfDs too soon. Personally I think it would be a good idea and should cut down on a bit of drama. Mind, I think drama is a constant on Wikipedia and if we tamp it down at AfD it will merely rise again elsewhere - but might as well give it a try. Jbh ^Talk 02:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support- It seems that the non-admin closures mostly occur before an admin has had a chance to close, this would prevent this. I don't see why anyone should oppose AfDs closures being delayed up to an entire day if the outcome ends up being correct, rather than have someone jump the gun and do a poorly thought out close. Of course, there still needs to be the exception for withdrawing your own nomination.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - We may as well try it, although I may have a CoI because I am one of the editors mentioned at the top. :) Jdcomix (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support and I'd actually make it wait until it hits the second day on the old log. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as a rule, though I'd support this as a suggestion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think requiring non-admins to wait an extra day is going to make any significant difference. They'll just be jumping at the bit to close the discussion at the new time. I think a better idea would be to consider why the non-admin closers are so rushed, when the admin closers don't seem to be. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ajraddatz, see my comment above re: RfA for the first part of your question. I highly suspect people view it as a way to get experience for an RfA not realizing it isn't something anyone really looks at unless you make mistakes or are annoying and relist everything without thinking. Admins are relaxed because most of these things aren't emergencies, and IMO, AfDs are relatively boring to deal with. I've been doing more AfD closes of late, but I generally don't enjoy them and mainly do it as a chore because I think that it's an area admins should help out in at least once in a while to keep aware of the practical application of community consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:SNOW closes are not restricted to admins nor should anyone have to wait for them to occur. Also waiting 24 hours makes no difference to a close. MarnetteD|Talk 04:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I didn't explain very clearly in the original proposal (and it's certainly not ready wording-wise in any case), so here's some more detail. Within the last year or two, there have been a spate of non-admins closing and relisting discussions rapidly, frequently before or right after the discussions come to the 168-hour mark. The latest went through the newest "Old" log barely an hour after it ticked over (midnight GMT), making questionable closes and relists before a more competent closer was able to get to them. Maybe they're racing to get pseudo-admin edits in before the actual admins get there, I don't know. This new rule (I'm fine with it being just a suggestion per Power, as well) would slow down the non-admin rush, cut down some on relist bias, and help give admins - who as Tony says are generally a lot more relaxed about closing times - a chance to see discussions that have petered out and can be closed (especially those that should be closed as delete) before, for example, someone gets to them and puts them in a new log just because the outcome isn't immediately obvious. Of course, the obvious exceptions for speedy/SNOW closures would still apply. And at the very least, if this doesn't come to pass, we should add a reminder somewhere about WP:There is no deadline and that having old AfDs sit in logs that are over 7 days old isn't necessarily a bad thing. ansh666 08:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  Ping Dennis Brown, Ajraddtz, and MarnetteD for my explanation above; sorry about the short initial statement, but I was in a bit of a rush and didn't get to explain as well as I should have. In short, I do think it'll make a difference, both in the quality of closes and in the number of meaningless relists. ansh666 08:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  /facepalm I can't spell Ajraddatz, sorry! ansh666 08:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see that an additional day makes any difference at all. Either they're allowed or they're not. Again, if a particular editor is a problem, they can be dealt with individually via warnings, sanctions, or bans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose implies that admins are prefered when closing discussions. They should not be. Admins are only preferred when protecting an article, blocking a user, or deleting an article. The actual closure of discussions should not be restricted to admins, nor should admins be given preferential treatment thereof. --Jayron32 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  WP:NAC (Experienced non-admin editors in good standing are allowed (although not necessarily encouraged) to close some XfD discussions. - emphasis mine), the existence of WP:BADNAC, and WP:DELPRO/WP:NACD (Usually, both closing and relisting are administrator actions.) disagree. The scope of NAC has grown a lot since I started at AfD about 5 years ago - it was intended for super obvious cases, but because of the super-backlog year or two at AfD, non-admins started doing more complicated closes and more relists. Non-admins are unable to consider the full spectrum of results, which results in bias towards certain results - I still have my own bias towards merge/relist, which was a source of opposition at my RfA regarding bad NACs. There are obviously varying opinions on whether this bias is a problem or not, but the fact that, as you say, admins are preferred when closing discussions shouldn't be under dispute. ansh666 18:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  It should be under dispute, and we should be constantly pushing back against any notion that admins are a special class of editors who deserve special privileges beyond that which their toolset directly grants them. Non-admins are not automatically lesser citizens in the Wikipedia world, and should not be treated as lesser. They have full respect and rights until such time as they have proven untrustworthy as individuals. --Jayron32 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  A fine sentiment, and one which is true in most places on Wikipedia. But it's wholly unsupported by policy in this specific area. Non-admins do not have the "right" to close discussions as delete, which leads to problems which this proposal is intended to address. (And honestly, nobody has any rights here, only privileges, but that's a whole different discussion.) ansh666 19:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  Arguably, Wikipedia is built neither on rights or privileges, but on utility. You're only judged by how useful you are in working on the organization's core mission. You don't have rights or privileges, you are only useful or not useful. And on the question of policy, policy does not exist before us, it exists after us. Wikipedia policy does not shape behavior; Wikipedian's behavior shapes policy, and if we decide we want to stop treating non-admins like second-class citizens at Wikipedia, then we just do that. Policy is only as useful as it is useful to our mission, and we don't follow policy simply because someone who got here before us wrote it. We follow policy because following the policy makes for a better encyclopedia. --Jayron32 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  So you're saying that you want non-admins to be able to delete pages? Because I don't understand what else you could do to "stop treating non-admins like second-class citizens" at AfD. As I said, in this area there are certain things that the community has determined that non-admins shouldn't be able to do, to, as you say, make for a better encyclopedia. (I'm honestly not understanding what you're getting at here). ansh666 19:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  I've never used those words. Until such time as you read the words I've said, and are able to correctly quote them, I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion. When you deliberately misattribute something I say to serve your own purpose, that is not a way to treat one's interlocutor with respect. It's a shitty thing to do, and I did nothing to deserve that. Vaya con dios. I'm out.--Jayron32 04:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, since I legitimately don't understand your point. ansh666 03:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Seven days is not really "rushed". Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  The rush is after the seven days. Admin or not, discussions shouldn't be closed before then anyways. ansh666 03:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as this would be an effective ban on the non-speedy cases of WP:NOTBADNAC, except when a backlog develops at AFD. Most closers know when to close and when not to close, and as has been said already, those that don't can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Iffy★Chat -- 13:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose there are many very experienced good NAC closers so this is unnecessary. Where there is a problem with a closer they can be looked at individually Atlantic306 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the purpose and the update process for the Retrieved date on a citation?- Bevo (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If it is online, web sites change content on their pages, so it is helpful for other editors to know what version of the URL was intended in the citation. Even news stories change online. Also, if the source is no longer available, it helps someone find a good archived copy, hopefully the same version that was originally cited. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jack N. Stock. I'd add that if you are thinking of updating the retrieved date, you should verify that the version of the website you are reading still supports the statement in the Wikipedia article. It's always possible that the source never really supported the statement, or it used to at the time the citation was added, but the web site has changed. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Do any of the guideline pages cover when to report that people are dating? I'm asking in connection with a series of edits over the last few months at Brandon Flynn and Sam Smith (singer). Following the posting of photos last fall of the two of them kissing, there were a flurry of claims in these articles that the two were dating. I reverted them, as they were unsourced (though I could find sources myself, but those were just snapshots and gossip), and who even knows whether a couple pictured together for the first time last week are still together this week? Now, several months later, it's fairly well established in sources that they're dating, but is that still to be mentioned in either article? And, now, someone added Sam Smith as "partner" in the Brandon Flynn infobox. With no source. I'm assuming that people aren't partners until a reliable source says so, right? Anyway, even though I'm not second-guessing my actions, I figured I'd find out whether this is all covered somewhere already. Largoplazo (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Decisions about what information to include or not include in an article is subject to both reliable sourcing and consensus. One or the other is NOT enough. It should be handled on a case-by-case basis and decisions should be made based on discussion on the article talk page where there is some disagreement. Don't let anyone say "because I have a reference, this MUST be in the article" or get upset about "removal of sourced information" or some such. Having a source is a necessary but not sufficient condition for putting some information in an article, there also needs to be agreement that the information is relevent. I have no opinion one way or another on this specific bit of information, but that decision has to be reached (in consultation with the sources; the type of source and depth of coverage is good evidence of relevence, for example) by discussion and no policy at Wikipedia will ever be able to bypass the need to discuss and reach consensus. --Jayron32 13:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Here it was pointed out that the syntax for quotation marks in Template:DISPLAYTITLE does exist (for articles on compositions, mostly songs and singles), but "there is no consensus" on its usage. Was there a relevant discussion on it or it simply was not implemented by default lack of discussion? There seems to be some inconsistency, as the template is already used for italicized titles per MOS. Brandmeister^talk 12:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I would have to search the archives... but I do remember multiple discussions at MOS on this... so I think the note about “no consensus” is a case of the community disagreeing, rather than one of lack of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Moot

 – This has already closed with a WP:SNOWBALL against the move proposal.

I have initiated a discussion on changing the title of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Interested editors may wish to comment in the discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the inconsistency regarding the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian genocide and Greek genocide. The question, which capitalization is correct, seems to depend on whether or not these are proper names. WP:NCCAPS. St.nerol (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggested moving Armenian Genocide to Armenian genocide , but the consensus went against me. See Talk:Armenian Genocide#Requested move 3 February 2018

I'm pinging the other editors who commented on the move request at Talk:Armenian Genocide (@Ribbet32:, @Diranakir:, @EtienneDolet:, @Dr.K.:) BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd have anything to add beyond what I wrote in the last RM. If anyone can demonstrate Greek Genocide is systemic capitalization in the literature justifying a move, it can be RM'd. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What do the preponderance of reliable sources use (for each individual article title). Whatever that is, do that (for each individual article). --Jayron32 03:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. The prevailing capitalization may well not be consistent throughout among the articles. Each title should be decided based on the prevailing capitalization in reliable sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The key is to discover whether the word “genocide” is being used descriptively or as part of a proper name. Do reliable sources routinely NAME the event as “the X Genocide” or do they merely DESCRIBE the event as being a genocide. To determine this one has to look at lots and lots of sources, compare how THEY capitalize, and see if there is a trend. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Does this help or hinder? Thincat (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Human mission to Mars#Requested move 5 March 2018

Is "manned mission" a gender-neutral term, and how much weight do we give to NASA's style guide? -- Netoholic @ 03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please join the discussion of how NOTCRYSTALBALL should be applied to predictions of US election outcomes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff. Comment by @Chris troutman: "While you're probably right, I don't think it's appropriate to change the wording of a policy without consensus.". I didn't think I really changed the meaning, but I can see the point, so lets see if there would be consensus. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to the addition, although I think some wordsmithing might be needed since the following sentence about something being attributable versus being attributed better appears immediately following the point about Paris. I would like to see if there's consensus for this change. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  I would oppose it, but for a rather nuanced reason. The "citing the sky is blue" trope is too idiomatic at Wikipedia to carry meaningful policy weight; there's an entrenched, old debate over the specific idiom to the point where we have competing essays, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue and the nuance is that sometimes you do actually need to cite the obvious and sometimes you don't, and context (not policy) will tell you when. I think the OP made a good-faith clarification, but the Paris, France example is sufficient and unlikely to carry the cultural baggage that the "sky is blue" idiom just does at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 05:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Okay. I didn't really make the edit to clarify it though, it just seemed like the most sensible way to put WP:BLUESKY in there. Any suggestions to link BLUESKY, or should it not be linked at all in the policy? Or should BLUESKY be changed to FRENCHCAPITAL? Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you should link anything there, the meaning of the sentence is plain and unambiguous and doesn't need further elaboration. --Jayron32 05:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn’t link to WP:BLUESKY without also linking to WP:NOTBLUE. So best to not link either. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Something else to consider... the reason why "The capitol of France is Paris" is a good example to use in the NOR policy isn't so much that the truth of the statement is obvious... but that (as a statement) it is extremely verifiable. There are literally thousands of sources that could be cited to support it. In other words, it is the fact that the statement isn't original research that is obvious. Now... "the sky is blue" is also quite verifiable (and thus is not OR)... but... the counter argument (that the sky isn't actually blue) is also quite verifiable. So it does not make for a good example to use in our NOR policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see the addition adding to the policy. In general, the shorter the policy, the better, and any addition that doesn't add context or explain the policy better is superfluous. Making it longer just to add a link WP:BLUE seems pointless since that information page isn't about original research, it is about citations for things that are obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• As for the proposal, I suppose it wasn't the best idea.

As for France, @Blueboar: I am starting to have some doubts. How would you source the fact that the capital of France is Paris? Sure, you could link some maps. But that's not exactly an authoritative source. You could link paris.fr, that may be slightly better but still not the source. On the Paris article the statement "By the end of the 12th century, Paris had become the political, economic, religious, and cultural capital of France." is backed up by a 2010 city guide. Um. It seems to trace back to "Clovis the Frank, the first king of the Merovingian dynasty, made the city his capital from 508." which looks like an uncited fact. (although I suppose it'll be found in "Paris, des origines à Clovis" cited all the way at the end of the paragraph) I now actually do wonder what a proper source for the statement "The capital of France is Paris" would even look like. My best guess would be it's codified in law somewhere. I wouldn't mind if Wikipedia linked that law, even if only for historical purposes. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex... just about any modern atlas could be cited for “the capitol of France is Paris”... it is also mentioned in numerous encyclopedias, dictionaries, almanacs, newspaper articles, tourism guides... etc. etc. etc. this isn’t the kind of controversial fact where we would require a high end scholarly source (but if someone insisted, I am sure there are plenty that could be cited). Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

How about a source for this statement: "There was no hurricane anywhere in Modesto California yesterday." North8000 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@North8000: You would probably use something like https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sto&sid=KMOD&num=72&raw=0 as a source for that, although that only proves it wasn't that windy. In general you can't prove a negative. A source for "The capital of France is Paris" could be given, but a source for "There is no God" can't be given. Have some tea. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: But that would be O/R / synthesis to derive my statement from that  :-). My example was kind of whimsical, but we had a real life issue like that. An otherwise-RS made an error (or poor choice of words) and called a public figure something that was somewhat negative but obviously in error, so blatantly untrue that (like my hurricane example) that no source is going to cover to say the opposite and refute it. Some POV folks liked the obvious error and used wiki-policy to keep it in. North8000 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@North8000: Now I'm curious what exactly you are talking about. What is it? Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:It was a painful old dispute that was formative in my wiki thought process that I really don't want to go back to, but the statement was that Ron Paul (the guy advocating trade with Cuba) is an isolationist. I think the mis-statement came from him being a non-interventionist. I learned a few things from that. One is that even genuinely wp:"reliable" sources can be unreliable on a particular topic. The second is that sources don't cover implausible statements that practically nobody is making. Such as my hurricane statement. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: So citing another encyclopedia for a fact is acceptable? Did not know that. I won't insist on a source, but I wondered what it would look like. I mean, if we were to cite an atlas you could ask the atlas people "so how do you know?", you ask whoever they mention how they know and eventually you should arrive at some actual source. I wondered what that might be. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, a lot depends on the specific encyclopedia and the specific fact... but yes... just about any published general encyclopedia would be quite acceptable for verifying which cities are national/regional capitols. As for what the citation of an atlas might look like... it would look something like this:^[1]

(note: I don't have an actual copy of the Times Atlas in front of me, so I did make up the page number - just for the sake of giving an example... obviously if I were formatting an actual citation, in an actual article, I would take the time to look up the actual page to cite). Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and information on citing another encyclopedia. What I actually meant though with "what it would look like" was if you would ask the atlas people how they know, they point (for example) to the map makers and you ask them how they know, they point to some database and you ask the people who made that how they know.. And in the end I guess you will end up with a law or similar I think? And what does that law look like. For "The United States is a nation" for example, I think you'll end up with the United States Declaration of Independence. But I don't know what you would get for "The capital of France is Paris" and that's what I am curious about. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be a primary source, which policy says we should avoid when possible WP:PRIMARY. At the time, there wasn't universal acceptance that the Declaration of Independence established the United States as a nation, so it is not irrefutable. Some people might say it is the Constitution or some other document that established the United States as nation, and some might say that the Second Continental Congress had no legal right to declare independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain (the British certainly disputed it at the time). Thus we need WP:SECONDARY WP:RELIABLE sources to verify that the United States is a nation. As for Paris, I'm just not sure. What makes you think that Paris is the capital of France? Right now, the source in the Paris article is Le Parisien and, on the face of it, I can't consider that source to be completely impartial. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: I can't thank you enough for your response. No seriously, I can't. The thanks system is broken. And you are absolutely right. I think Le Parisien is pulling our leg when they say Paris is the capital of France. Everybody knows Paris is in Denmark. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, this aversion to citing primary sources sometimes reaches a phobic & impractical extent. If one needs to cite an authority to state that the Athenians (& allies) defeated the Persians at Marathon, why not cite Herodotus directly instead of a secondary source? Those secondary sources will rely on Herodotus for that fact. (As for the consequences of this battle, yes a secondary source should be cited to substantiate an opinion.) As for an authoritative source proving that Paris is the capital of France, has anyone here considered there might be an administrative French law establishing just that? (Which one, I don't know. I would contact a French embassy for that fact. That is, unless anyone reading the article will get cooties because a primary source is being used.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder: You (the individual editor) should not revert anything unless you personally object to its actual content. Your objection can be quite minor, but it should be an objection that you actually hold. This is actually our formal policy on the subject of updating policies: "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views."

One of the reasons for this is if you revert something because of your guess that some other, hypothetical editor might object (or because you don't think that WP:NOTBURO should be a policy), then the BRD-based resolution process is going to be broken. Those conversations tend to go like this:

Bold editor: So why do you object to this change? How can I improve it?

Reverter: I don't.

Bold editor: So why the heck did you revert it?

Reverter: Aren't you supposed to get written permission first, before making a change?

Bold editor: Not according to WP:POLICY. Not according to WP:NOTBURO. Not even according to WP:CONSENSUS.

Reverter: Well, someone would probably object. I'm sure there's something in every change to a policy that would bother someone.

Bold editor: Well, nobody actually did object, did they?

Reverter: I dunno. But someone told me last year that I had to get consensus for my change, so you have to get consensus for yours.

Bold editor: <screams>

Let's not have that, okay? If you personally don't believe that a change makes a page worse, then please (please!) let the reverter be someone who actually does hold that POV. Then the bold editor actually has a chance at finding out what's wrong with the proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposal:_Replace_G6_with_explicit_finite_criteria about replacing CSD G6 with more defined criteria. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Background information:

• In 2011 the Pat O'Keefe article was created. The article concerns the life and times of a boxer who lived during the roaring twenties. The article was created by an editor who placed very general information upon it, such as the birthdate, name, etc. Very general claim statements. Over the years, the article never grew beyond a few sentences at most.
• Fast forward to today, where a relative of the boxer (who has an announced and recognized COI) has written a brand new article (which I'll call the draft version). They would like this draft version to supercede the current article (which I'll call the LS, or long standing version). They have been using the COI edit request system in the attempt to place the information from the draft version into the LS version. I have two questions here:

1. The LS version, since the day it was activated, has never undergone any kind of formal review process, such as WP:AFC. Its texts have never been examined in detail, nor has any other details, large and small, been vetted through the lense of the AFC process. With this new draft version, isn't now the best time to place this draft in front of that process, in order that it might receive all those benefits, carried out by editors experienced in the AFC process?
2. Is submitting the draft version for COI edit requests an appropriate use of the COI system? I had thought that edit requests were to be actionable directives placed before the community in order to quicky review and approve information into already well established and functioning articles where a COI presence was indicated. It is rare for a COI edit request to involve the entire article. Is the proposal to re-write the article within the intended scope of the COI edit request system?

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to reading your responses. Spintendo      19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• As there is an existing article, it should not go through AfC. We would have to delete the existing article, and move over (which we won't do), or delete the existing article, and then undelete it, to have a history merge so that we can have the history of the article in case someone want to revert the changes. I'll save you my rant on the issues that are involved with AfC and COI (tl;dr, it is a system that has structural advantages to being a COI editor rather than a non-COI editor.), but there would certainly be more eyes on it in mainspace, and it doesn't fuck up the article history. It should be done through the COI system, and changes be proposed incrementally (as I highly doubt the entire draft is ready for publication). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Tony. Spintendo      20:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Some kind of process/system would be useful. Many CoI editing requests are not for creation but for modification, and it can take significant work on the part of editors willing to get involved. See Talk:Realtor.com for recent example. When there's not such a neutral, experienced editor available, what usually happens is either: A) permissible changes by a conscientious CoI editor doing it right are rejected out-of-hand by a drive-by respondent to the edit request, usually on the vague basis of "no consensus to make the changes". This is actually problematic under WP:EDITING policy; no one has to get permission first to improve an article here. Or, B) non-neutral edits which should not be made, and were written by a PoV-pushing CoI editor who is not doing it right, get approved willy-nilly by someone who didn't bother to read them carefully, and this is of course a problem under WP:NPOV policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? Bright☀ 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is the first time I've noticed this, but I have found some spam on a talk page. I'd like to remove it but thought I would ask for advice here first. I searched the archives and have not found this question. Thank you ahead of time for your answer(s). Please ping. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 07:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages and article talk pages are different. If the spam is on an article talk page then you can remove it per WP:NOTAFORUM. If it's on a user talk page, you should ask the user to remove it. But if you are fairly sure the person who placed the spam is evading a block you can remove it per WP:EVADE. If the spam is horribly disruptive you can ask an administrator to exercise a Wikipedia:Revision deletion. If you can be more specific, I might be able to help further, Barbara (WVS). Binksternet (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick answer. The spammy content is on the talk page of Vulvar cancer. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 07:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The comments at Talk:Vulvar cancer are not a problem. They could be regarded as spammy but they are good-faith attempts to promote a related cause without any disruption. Yes, that's a misuse of a talk page but it's very inconsequential. I could archive them if wanted. Re user talk pages, often spammers post stuff and are not seen again. If the user is not active, just blank any user page with spam. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It recently came to my attention (thanks to Fram) that the common practice of linking to YouTube videos and similar user-generated content from talk pages, where the copyright status of the linked content isn't 100% clear, may be disallowed by WP:COPYVIOEL and WP:COPYLINK. I think the policy is heavy-handed and deserves to be reevaluated, and in my view should narrowed to apply only to article space. If this requires WMF's consent then sobeit, but getting the community's reaction would at least be a good place to start, if for no other reason than to get WMF's attention.

At least as applied to good-faith links from talk pages, the policy is extreme and reflects an outdated analysis of copyright law. It's settled law at this point that linking to infringing content does not create liability, except potentially in very narrow circumstances that don't apply to Wikipedia (i.e. profit-driven encouragement of copying, a la Piratebay). WP:COPYLINK cites a single court decision from 1999 that's widely viewed as an outlier. And the sentence in WP:COPYVIOEL, "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement," is outdated. The ALA article the sentence relies on, which the ALA has actually taken down, didn't take into account any court decisions after 2000, when Internet law was still in its infancy. The law in this area has come a long way since 1999-2000 and our policies should be adjusted to reflect that.

Beyond the legal issue, restricting links on talk pages in this way is simply extreme and unnecessarily inhibits discussion and the development of the encyclopedia. I can't count the number of times I've used external links from talk pages to unvetted content to assist in research efforts or to advance an argument. We can't reasonably be expected to assess potential copyright issues every time we link to something for internal discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Where there is possible fair use involved, I could agree that we should not be strict on links. But regardless of the question of linking, we can enforce stronger than US rules to, for example, disallow any links to a clearly non-fair use video (eg a full upload of a copyrighted movie without any transformative elements by the uploader). From the video games project, we have to be viligant against pirate bay-type sites, illicit key generation sites, etc. that we take away from articles and talk pages all the time but we don't want WP to be seen as complicit on the copyright vio. That may be stronger than case law, but it is a good reason to be stronger than case law. But when you get to things like research papers published on researchgate.net by the authors, despite the fact they had seemingly given copyright to the journal, that's a gray area - wouldn't use as an EL in an article but would be reasonable to help on a talk page since one can argue the fair use there by the researcher. --Masem (t) 19:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair use isn't really an issue. Linking is legal, so there's no need or reason to invoke a legal defense, especially one as squishy and misunderstood as fair use. Of course our policies can be stricter than the law requires; what I'm saying is that in this case it serves little purpose and is detrimental to the project. If talk pages are being used as Piratebay-style clearinghouses for infringing works, then certainly that can and should be forbidden, though I'd think that would be sufficiently covered by WP:NOTHERE. I'm talking here about links included in comments permitted by our talk page guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: the title of this section is misleading. No-one is prohibiting links to user ‘’’generated’’’ content. This is linking to data on, e.g., youtube that is not user generated, but to material that is hosted on, e.g., youtube in violation of copyright. I would ask you to make that clear in the title.

Bringing in a fair-use argument is a red herring. If the material that we link to is fair use on the external site, it is not a copyright violation on that site. In that case we are not prohibited to link to that (at least, if we put it in a fair use context).

Youtube however carries material in violation of copyright. Youtube takes such material down. That is material that is not fair use on youtube, and hence it is also not fair use for us to link to it - we link, like The Pirate Bay, to material provided by someone who is not providing the material under a fair use rationale, but is providing material in violation of the owner’s copyrighted. Whether ‘’we’’ would discuss it in context and could claim that through our discussion of the material is fair use, the material we link to is not fair use but a plain copyright violation.

Linking however to the original would be fair use, and that is ‘’always’’ the existing solution. That will result sometimes in ‘linking’ to material that is not available online. Although I can see that that is inconvenient, unfortunately it is a fact of life that we have to live with some inconveniences - we will have to load the DVD, sit through the first 45 minutes of Frozen until she finally sings ‘let it go’. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the heading; it wasn’t my intention to mislead. In any case, no offense, but your understanding of copyright law is way off the mark here. The main point is that good-faith linking from Wikipedia to potentially infringing content is perfectly legal regardless of whether the linked content might be protected by fair use or any other copyright defense. So there is no reason or need to perform a fair use analysis. It’s unreasonable and unnecessary to expect editors to conduct a fair use analysis before linking to other websites. And no I’m not just talking about YouTube. I’m also talking about things like copies of research papers, paywall newspaper articles that are re-posted to discussion forums or blogs, etc. That sort of content is infringing and not fair use, but linking to it for the purpose of improving Wikipedia is beneficial and perfectly legal. We should allow it. ————— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFleischman (talk • contribs)

@DrFfleischman: But that is not what is discussed in that policy. What is discussed there is linking to material that plainly violates copyright, not cases that may or may not, or may be fair use. If I rip a DVD of a current movie, and upload that on YouTube, I am infringing the copyright. I am not allowed to link to that copy from Wikipedia, and YouTube will take it down. It is not your responsibility to check whether what I uploaded is a copyright violation, but if you notice, or if someone tells you that it is a copyright violation, then you should remove the link, and you should not add that link again. All the other cases that you mention have nothing to do with infringing copyrights and are legal to link to. Question is whether it is ethical to do so in some of the cases, and I will continue the argument that it is in all cases not necessary to link to material that violates copyright, so why specifically bother.

I do think that WMF has reasons to have that policy more restricted than maybe needed, and that this should first be consulted with WMF, as I doubt that any consensus here could trump WMF legal (again, I could bring an ad absurdum argument here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the cause of our disagreement here. WP:COPYLINK and WP:COPYVIOEL have key differences. WP:COPYLINK only says not to link "if you know or reasonably suspect" that the linked content is infringing. WP:COPYVIOEL has much stricter language and says that when linking to sites like Scribd, WikiLeaks, and YouTube, "due care" should be taken. But as I look more closely, it appears that WP:COPYVIOEL, which is part of WP:EL, is just about external links from article space, not about links from talk pages. So maybe this is a non-issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a bolded part in WP:ELNEVER .. though the guideline applies in general only to content, that part applies throughout wikipedia, per the underlying policy.

I don’t understand why you, Dr. Fleischman, are so insisting about this after you linked to wat is very likely a copyright violation in such a frivolous way - there was nothing even remotely fair use in that link, and you could have easily given credit to the original, and I think that user:Fram rightfully removed that use. This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what is maybe not illegal for you to do, I hope you understand that. I am waiting for the first editor that agrees with you. If this subject is so important to you, then please have the curtosy to watchlist the pages where the discussion is going on, at least while the discussion is running. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You are poisoning the well and personalizing a good faith discussion. You are actively misrepresenting WP:ELNEVER, which doesn't say anything about "throughout Wikipedia." You are also using your misunderstanding of the law as some sort of cudgel to attack me personally. I do not appreciate this one bit. Have a nice day. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

ELNEVER says without exception, WP:COPYLINK is specifically stating not to link to works in violation of copyright. I am not misrepresenting anything. But seen some recent discussions the issue seems to be that we want to be allowed to anything outside of mainspace, for whatever reason. I have early on said that thisis notgoing to change unless WMF changes it, we cannot do anything without that, it is moot. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we all agree that we can't set a local policy that violates WMF policy or the law. As there are several court rulings regarding linking to copyrighted content and the possible contributory infringement by the linker, I think we should get WMF Legal to opine on the matter. If they say "never" than that rather curtails the discussion. Likely the answer will be what it typically is with copyright questions: "it depends", after which we can then discuss how we want policy to reflect that; rather than going back and forth about what is or isn't fair use, we can focus on what does or doesn't fit with NFC as it pertains to ELs. Crow^Caw 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)