The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus on initial proposal. There is a consensus to remove the sentence about DAB pages, but no consensus on what to replace it with (if anything). - jc37 03:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC) - Striking the latter part of the close to allow for further discussion. - jc3723:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@BilledMammal and BD2412: It is clear that inclusion guidelines for disambiguation pages should be set out at WP:DAB or MOS:DAB, as they are, and not in a remote section of a largely unrelated policy. As it stands, the passage was added on a whim in 2014 and it took years for the discrepancy to be noticed. Therefore, I propose that the conflicting paragraph here be reworded to eliminate the current state of disorganisation, from
[Wikipedia articles are not:] Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.
to
[Wikipedia articles are not:] Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the ones well-discussed on Wikipedia.
Is this dispute still happening? I'm sure I've commented on this somewhere else a few months ago, and I thought consensus had been reached that disambiguation pages should not be restricted to only those people with individual articles but anyone who had enough coverage somewhere to meet WP:DABMENTION. This seems to be the intent of J947's suggestion, which I therefore endorse. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I could support a change that set a middle line between WP:DABMENTION (which requires far too little coverage and permits the creation of pages like Terry Pearce where the individuals are only "discussed" as part of a list) and the current standard of "notable", which could exclude more extensive entries that a link would be beneficial for.
However, based on replies like this one where "well-discussed" is interpreted as being an entry in a list, I believe the proposal made by J947 would need to be edited to be made more specific. BilledMammal (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Attempting to correct behavioral issues with minor wording changes is an interesting tactic, though unlikely to result in the changes you seem to imagine it will. --Jayron3213:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support that change as that would bring that sentence in line with current practice, while still maintaining that disambiguation pages should not be used to list people that are not noteworthy. --Tavix(talk)14:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that "well-discussed" should be the minimum requirement here (iff "notable" is removed or is not enforced). I do not think it makes any sense to have different thresholds for "discussed-ness" that depend on size of DAB page -- a passing mention in an article should not get its own blurb on a DAB page just because there are only two other names there. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - I don’t understand why we should be DABing eg non-notable players on football teams, non-notable actors on TV serieses etc. Notability is not about whether people DO have a page, it’s about whether they COULD have a page. This proposal just seems to serve to greatly inflate the number of names mentioned on DAB pages without making them more useful - “well discussed” is not a clear definition whilst “notable” is something Wiki edits deal with a lot. FOARP (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Having been pinged to this discussion, I will note that in all of these discussions, I have seen virtually no mention of what is actually most helpful to the reader. I will readily grant that for a lengthy disambiguation page (like John Smith or Robert Jones), it would be excessive to cram in a lot of mere mentions, but for a relatively short page (like the above-mentioned Charles Lott), it may well be useful to the reader to list some of those subjects currently omitted from the page. BD2412T14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
For pages that would not exist if they didn't include mere mentions the user is better served by having no page, as such pages are rarely maintained and thus rarely produce up to date results, unlike the search function. We shouldn't change policy to support the creation of these pages.
For pages that would otherwise exist due to multiple notable people having the name, I can see the use of including them, but I would argue we would be better served by adding a button that allows users to search for the name, preferably excluding from the results the articles in the dab page. The reason for this is I doubt the passing mentions will be better updated in a dab-page that includes notable people than one that doesn't include notable people, and thus readers are more likely to find the person they are looking for if they are directed to up to date search results - and are unlikely to think of searching themselves if they just see the list, as they are likely to assume it is complete.
Part of the problem may be that John Smith is not a typical name dab. The huge number of people bearing one of the most common names in the English-speaking world makes WP:NOTABLE a reasonable threshold for that page. However, the bar should be set much lower for a more typical name dab which lists only a few or even a few dozen people. There, it is far more likely that a reader will be seeking someone with a mere WP:DABMENTION and no article, so we should include them. Certes (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
How on earth is it more likely that someone would be seeking a DABMENTION for a less common name than for a "John Smith" name? More people will be searching for non-notable John Smiths than non-notable [rare names] simply because more people exist with that name. If anything, the more common the name the more useful a DAB is for non-notable items! And how would we decide to include a namedrop without knowing how many people will ever be at a DAB page, considering the near-impossibility of removing DAB entries (I have been told that, barring deletion of the info in an article, there is never a good reason to remove a name)? No, the bar for inclusion should be equal for all DABMENTIONS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"Well-discussed" should be clarified to mean that entries in set-index articles are allowed, and entries like (using the example above) the non-notable character Charles "Chuck" Lott in Between (TV series) are not. Otherwise, no change. Readers will only hear about Charles "Chuck" Lott if they know about the TV series; if they do, searching will be redundant, and if they don't, they won't want to search for him in the first place. Avilich (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
While that may seem intuitively obvious, I'm not sure it's as absolute as you just stated. While rare, someone may come to Wikipedia trying to remember which TV show that Chuck Lott character showed up in. Of course, Google will likely be more useful than us, but people might just occasionally ask that question. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not hot on popular culture, especially American popular culture, so I often have to look up names etc to learn who is being referred to - I don't always even know if it is a person (e.g. actor) or a character. Dabmentions are often helpful for this as they either give sufficient context themselves or give enough information that I know where to look for further context. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Often the top google hits don't provide the necessary context for someone who doesn't already know the basics. Long-running TV shows are probably the most common example, with the top results being fan pages and articles in magazines and similar written by and for people who have been following from (near) the beginning. Wikipedia can be relied upon to have an introduction that either requires no prior specialist knowledge or clear links to where that knowledge can be gained (at least in all the subject areas relevant to this discussion) so it is typically a more useful starting point. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have a proposal I think will be helpful to readers that I will post to this thread in a few minutes when I get some time. Huggums537 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
While I agree with the idea of the proposal in spirit, I think it would still have the problem of my original complaint about having two different sets of guidance in two different places, so I am going to suggest a slight variation to the proposal in a new subsection to this thread that I think will resolve the problem, and be more useful to both readers and editors alike because it will be less confusing, and less contradictory to each other. Plus, I wholeheartedly agree with the OP that the dispute should be settled at the appropropriate DAB guidance pages, and my new proposal listed in the next subsection will direct editors there. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, it has been nearly a month without any more participation on this, and we need to resolve it after months of debate, so I think it is time to invite the broader community on a request for comment with this proposal since the last RfC from the broader community about this was opened to avoid a "local consensus", and so an RfC is due again since we actually can't find any consensus this time for real. Huggums537 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed variation to WP:NOTDIRECTORY (revisiting simple lists)
[Wikipedia articles are not:] Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.
Updated for comparison on 04:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
For clarification: This proposal is a variation of changes that were discussed in the main section above. This context was intended to be conveyed to participants in my original opening statement, but that meaning was lost due to refactoring done to my opening statement by BilledMammal that changed this meaning in a significant way by removing that context, so I am now clarifying this here since the refactoring did not preserve my original intent. This may be the source to some of the confusion causing the proposal to not be easily understood and putting it at an unfair disadvantage. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Notice of small correction: I've just noticed that another possible source of confusion is the fact that my proposal causes the duplication of two links to the same DAB guidance to appear, and the added duplicate link is not relevant to the proposed text so I've replaced it with a more accurate one that is. This is from me scrutinizing it some more due to some constructive feedback from several editors saying it was confusing. Huggums537 (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Survey (NOTDIRECTORY and Simple listings)
Support as nominator because it just plain makes sense. Huggums537 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Context for the reader: The link to DABMENTION sums up what is being said in the above proposal, and leads the reader/editor more specific guidance, where the details of what should happen with those pages (such as what "well discussed" means) can be hashed out there (where the debate has no effect on this decision here), but it also lets readers/editors know that there is some kind of specific rules that prevent you from making a "complete listing" on DABs without incorrectly saying it is based on the more "generalized" notability guidance. I'd also like to point out that the closing of the previous RfC indicated that there was a common thread on both sides of the debate that the wording could be better tuned to cover commonly accepted additions to DABs, and I think this absolutely is that change. A solution far better than IAR, (because IAR could be argued for any side of the debate). I can't ping everyone that was involved in the previous RfC because I think it limits the pings so just pinging to users who participated in the original discussion. Those who were involved in the previous RfC will probably see it again.
Oppose. Functionally, this appears identical to the previous RfC on this topic, just with the addition of more words. As such, I will quote my previous !vote on this topic, which still applies:
The current wording prevents the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of dab pages between non-notable individuals, such as Terry Pearce and Arthur Harley. These dab pages present a number of issues; first, only one link should be included per WP:DABSTYLE, but in many circumstances non-notable people, particularly sportspeople, are mentioned in multiple contexts, all of them equally valid as targets, and thus readers looking for a context different from the one we choose to link to will be left confused and in the wrong location.
Second, these dab pages are unmaintainable and unmaintained; with hundreds of thousands of them they will only rarely be updated after their initial creation, and thus readers looking for a mention of a different Arthur Harley after the dab page is created will struggle to find the mention, as rather than being taken to a list of search results that includes the article they are looking for they will be taken to a dab page that doesn't.
Third, we often don't have enough information to determine whether mentions are of the same people or of different, but using a dab page requires us to make a statement on this and thus has WP:V and WP:OR issues. For example, at Terry Pearce it is not unlikely that the Australian futsal coach and the Australian masters athlete are the same person, but we make the statement that they are different people without any evidence to support this.
These problems are all avoided by maintaining the status quo and instead directing readers to use the search function; it provides a better result for the reader, and it creates far less work for editors.
Oppose in strongest possible terms per my previous comment and the discussion there, which revealed that at least some of the people supporting these proposals believe it would allow (and possibly even require) anything mentioned on any article anywhere in Wikipedia to be included on every possible disambig page - an obviously ridiculous outcome that can only be prevented by adhering to our common understandings of notability. Any removal of "notable" from the text here is a complete nonstarter and I'm genuinely shocked that someone would restart the same conversation without addressing that or seeking any meaningful compromise on it. Notability (or, more properly, WP:DUE, which is what we technically mean when discussing article content, but the implications are the same) ought to be the primary criteria for inclusion (and often, the only one), as well as a red-line where things that completely fail it cannot be included regardless of other policies. The idea that we could disregard notability entirely here makes no sense. The threshold for inclusion in a DAB page may be different, of course, but it is not nonexistent; and "it was mentioned in passing somewhere in some other article" is obviously insufficient. And by my reading, DABMENTION provides no meaningful guidance in that case, so I would generally oppose linking it here even as a suggestion. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
As the proposal suggests, that is more appropriate addressed where the problem actually resides at the DAB guidance, not by fudging up policy. Huggums537 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Aquillion:anything mentioned on any article anywhere in Wikipedia to be included on every possible disambig page is not at all what WP:DABMENTION prescribes. Perhaps the confusion is with the common shortcut, but that section has been strengthened from "mentioned" to "discussed" in the last few years specifically so a simple "name drop" doesn't lead to the name being added to a disambiguation. Additionally, it has the clause if it would provide value to the reader. This means that it should only be added to the disambiguation if it is something that someone would reasonably search for—trivial discussions should not be added because it would not be useful on a disambiguation. I'm hopeful that perhaps you're simply unaware of this level of guidance, because it is far from nonexistent as you claim. Thanks, --Tavix(talk)15:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The interpretation of WP:DABMENTION that you present here doesn't match how you and others have interpreted the guidance elsewhere. For example, see this AfD, where you !voted Keep per WP:DABMENTION, and another editor argued Where in WP:DABMENTION does it require more than inclusion in a list to consider the term discussed in the article?. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Support per common sense. If a reader bothers to search for "Terry Pearce", having a page that provides what information we have on persons sharing that name (and also suggests some possible spelling variations like Terry Peirce and Terry Pierce) is useful to the reader. It might not answer their question, but it tells them what we have. The suggestion that these pages are unmaintainable and unmaintained is factually inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that these pages are reasonably well-maintained, but that those doing the maintaining are constantly being treated disrespectfully by those who are not doing the work. Obviously, the set of disambiguation pages complained of here represents a tiny fraction of all disambiguation pages, most of which disambiguate terms that unquestionably have multiple articles as their targets. It is also unfortunately demonstrably inaccurate to say that the search function provides better results for the reader. If that was the case, we would not need any disambiguation pages at all, but I see no clamor to delete the lot. In fact, a search for "Terry Pearce" will give the reader no indication that "Terry Peirce" and "Terry Pierce" (which they might actually be looking for) even exist. There is also something to be said for the benefits of putting these pages together. If Terry Pearce, the Australian futsal coach, and Terry Pearce, the Australian masters athlete were in fact the same person, the editor creating the disambiguation page would have an incentive to find that out, and create an article on the subject, given that they would have found two points of notability from which to work. However, I know of no affinity between coaching futsal and running a 2000 meter race that makes it likely for them to be the same person. BD2412T04:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The suggestion that these pages are unmaintainable and unmaintained is factually inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that these pages are reasonably well-maintained, but that those doing the maintaining are constantly being treated disrespectfully by those who are not doing the work.
I checked five random pages consisting solely of WP:DABMENTION links:
These pages aren't reasonably well-maintained; they're not maintained at all, and the reader would be better served by the search results.
However, I know of no affinity between coaching futsal and running a 2000 meter race that makes it likely for them to be the same person. Same name, same age, same country, involved in top level sport. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Same name, same age, same country, involved in top level sport. that's not a guarantee, c.f. Jamie Allen (footballer, born January 1995) and Jamie Allen (footballer, born May 1995) who have the same name, were born within 5 months of each other in the same region of the same country (North West England) and both are professionals in the upper levels of the same sport - a much closer connection and yet they are different people, so you need more than you have before assuming that a middle distance runner and the coach of a completely different sport are the same person. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
But you also need more than that to assume that they are different people...if we can't even be sure that two DABMENTIONs aren't the same person, doesn't that indicate they aren't discussed sufficiently in their target articles to be DABMENTIONs in the first place? And I think the fact that we already have DABs distinguishing notable people not only by their profession, birth year, and birth month (91 title hits for "(footballer, born May"!), but multiple by their birth day ("(footballer, born [1-31]" returns 97 hits) indicates allowing any non-notable mention a place in a DAB would necessitate increasingly lengthy and specific designations. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
We're not "allowing any non-notable mention" a place, that's unhelpful hyerbole. What we're allowing is those people who (a) readers are likely to be searching for, and (b) who we have some encyclopaedic content about. Sometimes that means dab pages will be very long, that is a feature of a comprehensive encyclopaedia not a bug. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
A sizable minority of editors in this and previous discussions have been under the impression that DABMENTION currently licenses any mention because being mentioned can constitute "discussion" and any link would "provide value to the reader".
1. Apparently there are 10,029,641 "humans" in Wikidata; are each of these valid DAB candidates? 2. If "discussed" doesn't mean "given nontrivial treatment", what stops the addition of, e.g., private non-notable minor grandchildren of a deposed nobleperson to DABs?
I received the answer
1: No, only those which are mentioned in en.wiki articles 2: Nothing, if they are listed on the page
If persons, such as a private non-notable minor grandchildren of a deposed nobleperson have an ambiguous name and the detail in the relevant article is accurate and verifiable, then why wouldn't we want to include it on a disambiguation page? Why presume that no one would be searching for precisely that detail? I will grant that some common sense is needed as well, and that a name mentioned in passing in some other article does not necessarily need to be disambiguated. But that sort of common sense is nearly impossible to formulate into a policy or guideline, which often get misinterpreted as black and white binaries rather than shades of gray. older ≠ wiser11:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
You think being listed in the "Marriage and Children" section of some ancestor of defunct royalty, sourced to that ancestor's webpage or a comprehensive genealogy directory, is sufficient to warrant a DAB? JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Something like that would need to be considered on case-by-case basis. I would not go out of my way to include such tangential mentions, but if someone did add it to a disambiguation page, I likely would not object. older ≠ wiser19:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. These pages are the best we can do, given that there are over 1,000 dabs for each participant in WP:WikiProject Disambiguation, many of whom have other things to do with their lives. Sadly, search doesn't do half as well in most cases, but it's still available for when it does. Certes (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
These pages are the best we can do - that is my point. Dab pages of non-notable individuals are unmaintainable, resulting in search being better. BilledMammal (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Except search doesn't help find non-notable topics unless you know how to use advanced features. Searching for a term through the magnifying glass typically produces a list of the most relevant disambiguated results with the disambiguation page being the first option offered since it is one of the most relevant and easier places to begin a search to find more information on a specific topic whether it is notable or not. Huggums537 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The devs have put much thought into this, and it functions that way for a reason. For the benefit of the readers. Huggums537 (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, the search function will not provide results for a variety of useful interpolations, such as subjects with double-barreled middle names between the search terms, or subtle variations in spelling. BD2412T19:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
As I said in discussion with you earlier, why provide this feature only to people who have shared names? What about people with double-barreled middle names etc. who don't share a first-last name? They have the exact same issues. Rather than a handful of editors manually and unevenly maintaining an indexing function workaround for only a small share of subjects, a better option would be to implement a fuzzy proximity search option wherein terms in quotation marks must be within some small number of words n of another term. This could be as simple as adding a checkbox next to the search bar that automatically changes the user's entry from, e.g., '"Charles Church"' to '"Charles Church"~2' (or some other number) to include all the results with ≤2 words between "Charles" and "Church". JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I hope you manage to get that implemented. However, I don't hold out much hope: we've been begging for years for much simpler enhancements to Wikipedia's search facility, with no success. Certes (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
OpposeMOS:DABMENTION is, as the name indicates, a manual of style, not of inclusion of content, so it should not be linked at all (not to mention that "if it would provide value to the reader" is so vague that it should absolutely not be in a policy). I also agree with all of BilledMammal's concerns, especially that it would create problems with non-notable topics linked in multiple articles, and that dab pages would be difficult to maintain and redundant with a regular search (which were discussed in the previous RfC already). Avilich (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
So, it is your contention that guidance for DABS should link to the notability guideline, and not the guidance for DABS? I have to say that is absolutely startling. Huggums537 (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand the arguments of either of you. Huggums appears to confuse MOS:DAB with WP:DAB, and I said nothing about the latter. I also didn't say that policies should not link to guidelines or essays; I said that MOS:DAB should not be linked because of its scope, not because it's a guideline, and that the wording being referenced is too vague for a fixed rule like a policy. Avilich (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
You gave the mere fact that it is a style guideline as your first reason for excluding the link. I'm sure you can imagine why that led me to assume that status was relevant to your objection.
Also, policies are allowed to be vague. They are not fixed rules. This policy says that they're not fixed rules (see WP:NOTLAW). The policy on policies says "Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules". It also says that the goal of all our written advice pages is to provide clarity about "the spirit of the rule" rather than exact specifics, which suggests that some level of vagueness is acceptable.
I said style and formatting guidelines should not be linked because the policy being discussed here is not about style and formatting. I can't imagine what led you to think that I said something different. Also, policies are only to be ignored in very rare cases (WP:IAR); in every other case they should be enforced, and vague wording makes this impossible. What you said about "clarity about the spirit of the rule" only applies to guidelines: see WP:PG. Avilich (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more.
and also
Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have occasional exceptions. However, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded or sanctioned even if they do not technically break the rule.
The policy directly says that emphasizing the spirit of the rule over the exact wording applies to policies, not just guidelines.
Policies, guidelines, and every other kind of "rule" or advice are to be ignored when they prevent you from improving Wikipedia. Whether that is "very rare" or not depends on what you're doing and how well the relevant policies and guidelines are written. There isn't anything in IAR that says invoking it should be a rare event, though I understand that during the four years that you've been editing, we've been in a bit of a mindless-rule-following phase, so that may be your personal experience. It's not an actual rule, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
A policy may be found to be poorly worded if its literal application is thought to harm Wikipedia, and in that case may be revised or ignored. But no one participating in a policy RfC will propose one wording and at the same time a different interpretation "in spirit", or propose a wording with the deliberate intent of harming Wikipedia. We're discussing the rules, not the exceptions. Avilich (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - I still don't entirely understand the RFC, and I fully expect that I will be scolded for not supporting it. I opposed the previous RFC, which appeared to open the door to cruft and crud, and proponents of that RFC bludgeoned me and others, but, as the closer noted, they didn't persuade. I expect that the proponents of this RFC will now argue with me, and with other editors. They will be wasting their time on me. An RFC should be self-explanatory, and this one is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Weakening to DABMENTION is too weak. We don't want or need inclusion on dabs for anyone namechecked in any article. Strengthening to only articles with their own standalone bluelinks would be too strong. The current text sets a reasonable balance, allowing dabs to include notable-enough topics that do not have their own articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't make it clear before, but I've fixed it now, and the current text says, "just the notable ones", which many (incorrectly) interpret as Wikipedia articles only. Huggums537 (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Why is that an "incorrect" interpretation? It's what follows from a plain reading of Wikipedia:Notability, which treats "notability" as synonymous with article-worthiness. If that is not what is meant, then yes, we need to change the text, but the proposal is so jargon-filled as to be completely opaque. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@XOR'easter, a subject can be notable even if the article hasn't been written yet, right? There are 6,662,794 existing articles at the moment, but there are more than 6,662,794 notable subjects. We see this confusion with red links in lists regularly. The Wikipedia:Common selection criteria says Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable, and yet we see editors removing red links all the time because they incorrectly believe that notable means "already a blue link". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly what WAID is saying. There is a clearly distinct difference between "article-worthiness", and "has an article with a link turned blue". Huggums537 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
DABMENTION is a lower hurdle than article-worthiness. Ambridge has an entry for Ambridge (The Archers); Full house has an entry for Full house (poker); Ray has an entry for Ray (geometry). These are all encyclopedic topics which the reader visiting the dab may well be seeking, and their presence is clearly helpful. Removing them because their targets are sections rather than entire articles would be little short of vandalism. Certes (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
PAGEDECIDE also allows the entire contents of one notable article to be merged into another "broader article", but that doesn't mean that the newly created subsection in the parent "broader article" or any resulting anchored redirects to that newly created subsection are under any jurisdiction of notability guidance just because they previously enjoyed article status. This is per WP:NNC. Every one of those redirects are anchors to subsections, which means they are content within articles, and notability doesn't apply to them so it is irrelevant whether the current part of NOT would prevent their inclusion because it isn't supposed to apply anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that the addition to NOT does require such entries to be "notable", which some interpret as article-level WP:NOTABLE. Although there is no consensus to remove such entries, the more enthusiastic deletionists may start removing them on the grounds that this obscure line, quietly misplaced in an article content policy, overrides the considered and accepted consensus in dab guidelines. Certes (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Even more of a problem is the fact that the undiscussed reference to Notability that was added to NOT gives the false impression to readers that simple listings are defacto notable only or "Wikipedia aticles only" lists, but this is not the case per WP:LSC, which allows for non-notable lists, and complete lists with entries that have only been simply verified members of the group. Huggums537 (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Support (edit conflict). I've said my bit. Whether or not you agree that mention-only dab pages should exist, any guideline should clearly not be delineated at this page. The pros and cons should be discussed at a better page; meanwhile, the status quo should be kept (even if it isn't beautifully explained at MOS:DAB or WP:DAB, it has a long-standing editorial consensus behind it amongst those who work in navigation). J947 † edits04:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Support. I guess there's some history here that I haven't had the pleasure of participating in and am not especially interested in learning about. But history aside, on its face this proposal seems self-explanatory. WP:NOT (in theory) defines hard outer boundaries on what Wikipedia includes, and should therefore only include criteria that are backed by rock-solid community consensus. Yet WP:DABMENTION, which is a very prominent guideline that has not exactly lacked for scrutiny over the years, reflects a consensus that a mentioned topic or name should be included in dab pages "if it would provide value to the reader". The very existence of DABMENTION indicates that this provision of NOT lacks the broad community consensus required for legitimacy. -- Visviva (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The fact that a substantial proportion of the supporters at the last RfC were and continue to be convinced that "provide value to the reader" == "mentioned at all" indicates that our guidance should not be weakened. If editors want some sort of indexing function to make it easier for readers to find subjects they misspelled in the search bar or who only appear with first+middle+last name (and the reader is searching "first+last name"), then that would be better accomplished with some sort of fuzzy REGEXP search option rather than a handful of editors manually curating only those subjects with shared/diminutive/homophonic names. JoelleJay (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be better served in more detailed guidance elsewhere, rather than some editor trying squeezing what they've disagreed with into a 4 word bit part of policy? Huggums537 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Undecided. I was going to "Oppose" but I find the proposed language so confusing and unclear that I can neither support nor oppose. Can't the language be revised to make crystal clear the implications of supporting or opposing? If Robert McClenon and I are both having trouble understanding this, then it needs to be completely rewritten. Neither of us are ignorant knuckleheads, and both of us have extensive experience wrestling with dubious content. lCullen328 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cullen328, there was a lot of refactoring done to the original proposal that changed the meaning, and I also created The proposal in some haste, but I've added some clarification to the end of The proposal at the top so I hope this will be enough to make some sense out of it to enable you to come to a decision. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with the substance of this change, to clarify the wording of the sentence about "John Smith", but agree with PamD below, that WP:NOT should not be linking to guidelines about disambiguation. I would actually prefer the original proposal that J947 suggested above. Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The last RfC was by a different editor who opposed the change, and about a complete removal of the contentious material rather than wording it in a more acceptable way like this one does. Huggums537 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, there have now been votes on here expressing that same sentiment for the complete removal of the contentious material, which is not the same sentiment I shared or expressed in my proposal so I have to admit I am somewhat resentful that you are continuing to propagate this insulting insinuation that was originally made by BilledMammal in it previous comment. If it were my intention to seek the removal of the offending material as in the previous RFC, then I would have added that as an option. Huggums537 (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I never said anything about the RFCs being by the same editors, I never even checked who it was by. I'm sorry if you took offence but I never meant to direct my words towards any particular editor. All I meant was that this change would be in effect the same as the last suggested change, all this wording does is obscure that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Support per BD2412 and my comments in the last RFC. This proposed change is one that will allow dab pages to be crafted to best serve the reader in all cases, not just those that will make life easier for some maintainers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Remove NOTDIRECTORY is supposed to deter content from resembling Yellow Pages – commercial directories with addresses, phone numbers and such. But it is constantly misunderstood and confused with our navigational pages such as disambiguation, list and index pages. Wikipedia is huge now and so clearly needs navigational pages. WP:NOT is not the right place to get into the details of how this is best done. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
To clarify: I would prefer complete removal, which wasn't a popular option when I !voted but has since gained traction. Supporting the proposal as written is my second choice; either is better than doing nothing. Certes (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jayron32, MOS guidance is already being linked to earlier in the paragraph, this proposal only seeks to further clarify that with more accuracy. Huggums537 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Support Much better. I quite like this one. Its seems to be an attempt to narrow the defintion of what can be included, which is certainly needed. I can see exactly what it means right away and its not subjective or as subjective as the previous Rfc, which left space for all sorts of interpretations. There probably will be some confusion with new editors but that would give the ability define exactly what it means through the help system, telling them its a much narrower defintion of what can go in, now. In the last decade the DAB pages have been a real problem and this is a good attempt to address it. They're been a dumping ground, stuff so wide of the mark. Hopefully this will clean them up. Lastly, the WP:MOS is an active document, its not just a mechanical set of rules that must be followed. Its use here is perfectly valid. scope_creepTalk12:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
? @Scope creep The proposed wording defers to DABMENTION, which only has the definition of "provides value to the reader". That's much more vague and broad than "entries must be notable" (the current wording), and from the last RfC it's apparent that some editors interpret the DABMENTION guidance to mean "any and all mentions"...leading to the "dumping ground" at DABs you have observed. JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
DABMENTION also has the definition of "discussed within another article", which is a much higher bar than "any and all mentions". Rather than being a "dumping ground", it allows for useful and convenient navigation to topics in which Wikipedia has significant coverage—whether or not there is an article. --Tavix(talk)00:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
And many of the supporting editors at the last RfC believe "mentioned" == "discussed". I would support a "discussed" threshold if it was made clear that that means "significant coverage on WP", but the preferred interpretation by many of those who want to get rid of the "notability" language at NOT is that appearing in a genealogy tree or being listed as a winner of a non-notable local hall of fame award or being referenced as the defense attorney for a minor celebrity's DUI case would all be valid DABMENTIONs. So until that's settled I am going to oppose all attempts at weakening our criteria for DABs. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
If you disagree with WP:DABMENTION, please start a discussion about changing WP:DABMENTION. Whatever rules we agree on, that is the place to put them, rather than displaying one set of guidance there and overriding it with contradictory rules hidden away in a page where no one would think to look for advice on writing dabs. Certes (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Support, this is probably the best way to resolve the "conflict" between MOS and NOT. However, reading a few comments (especially the WP:CREEP ones), I'm now more in favor of removing the entire sentence about disambiguations. It's always struck me as odd that there is a sentence about disambiguation pages squeezed into guidance about white/yellow pages; it's too much of a non sequitur. --Tavix(talk)15:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose because it is incomprehensible. Seriously: spend a couple weeks not speaking in all-caps shortcuts, and see how it sounds. In principle, I'm open to revisions of this because, as I said last time, I can imagine cases where the threshold for listing is lower than the threshold for having a stand-alone page. Let's say, for example, that among the books of a notable author is one with a generic title, a book about which there isn't much to say, so we cover it (no pun intended) in the author's biography. It might be reasonable to list the book in a dab page, because it's somewhat "notable" in the everyday sense of the word even if it isn't so in the narrower, Wikipedia-jargon meaning. But the current proposal is a wall that only people who spend too goddamn much time on this website could penetrate. XOR'easter (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Support but... I would prefer if WP search simply did all this automagically - list first the ones with X in a title, then those with X in a subtitle, then articles mentioning X. (It’s one of those areas Google or DuckDuckGo are better.) But lacking that, and despite my reluctance to change guidances casually, I prefer the guidance phrasing here both as pointing to a guidance specific for DAB and not N, and because it is explicitly saying a guidance title instead of a misleading English rewording. If one wanted to say “where X is an article or sub-article title” would be a clear English phrasing. I do not feel there needs to be a hard separation between title vs subtitle, because articles do get merged into other articles and become subtitles, and some articles are smaller than some sub-article sections - there simply is not a magnitude difference between them and impact of refactoring should be minimized. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Per reasons given by others and in general to not lower the bar. There's also a structural problem with incorporating guidelines / MOS as structural part of the statements in a core policy. SincerelyNorth8000 (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether to support or oppose as both the proposed revision and the original text are bad. On the one hand, I fully support the current guidance at WP:DABMENTION. If there really is some need to update this page, that case is tortuously confusing in the vast amount of text here. Several editors I respect have voted to support (such as BD2412, Thryduulf, Certes, Tavix) and I largely agree with what they say. But I also agree with PamD's suggestion in discussion below and would also be OK with removing the mention of disambiguation pages from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on basis that disambiguation are not articles but are navigational aids intended to assist readers in locating relevant information within Wikipedia. That information does not have to be a standalone article. older ≠ wiser21:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd prefer simply to remove the text, leaving the matter to DABMENTION, but that option wasn't on the table when I !voted, and the revised version seems better than the existing text. Certes (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Disambiguation pages are needed. There's too many situations where there's shared names. These pages also prevent people from having to leave disclaimers on tens of thousdands of pages about how this John Smith refers to the footballer and not the chiropractor or whatever.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The proposed change would allow more entries on disambiguation pages. Just to be clear: do you oppose that relaxation? Certes (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I would like the closer of this discussion to consider not counting this vote since it appears to be a misunderstanding of the concept behind the proposal, and the editor has not responded to the ping that explains this. Huggums537 (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. An improvement from the current text, which - without additional clarification - is contrary to how DABs have worked for most of Wikipedia history, since entries have never required notability as it is commonly understood. While technically WP:NOPAGE is compatible with MOS:DABMENTION, since for practical reasons, those entries are could but are not created as permanent stubs, notability is widely used as shorthand for "should have an article". This sentence was added in 2014 without that clarification in an effort to avoid people turning DAB pages into phone books of truly non-notable people,[1][2], then was clumsily converted into a general rule on how DABs should work in 2022. [3][4] Neither of those changes appear to have been discussed. However, this is all too detailed for a general policy page like this and I would also support removal in favour of one sentence somewhere, perhaps in the paragraph at the top of NOTDIRECTORY, explicitly saying that this doesn't apply to DABs/DABs have their own rules (i.e. WP:DAB, MOS:DAB). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions05:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This needlessly complicates the rule and potentially also the disambiguation pages. Plus, where someone is mentioned on a page but does not have their own page, they may not be cited properly or edited out in the future, but they would stick on the DAB page. Readers are not served in situations like these - articles are supposed to disambiguate other articles, whereas terms can be searched for, and I think that's what the intent behind this change would do. SportingFlyerT·C18:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Articles are not supposed to disambiguate other articles, otherwise we wouldn't even have a need for DABs. The fact that you don't like the reality of always having to update articles is not an argument. Plus, this doesn't account for the fact that we have DAB entries that are redirects to entire sections of articles within other articles. So, if you thought that was the intent, then please rethink it. Huggums537 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand your first sentence at all. It's also a citation and verification issue. If I link to an article from a disambiguation page and there's no reference to what's being disambiguated at that page since it's been removed, and there's no citation on the disambiguation page, that's a problem. Also, if I'm updating the page and I don't know there's a disambiguation link to that page for say a person I just removed because they were uncited, that creates another problem. Dabs to sectional redirects are different - the link should break if the section breaks. SportingFlyerT·C22:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
If information is removed from a page, rendering a dab entry useless, and no one updates the dab, then that's a problem: the reader is sent on a fool's errand. However, it's a far less serious problem than leaving the reader with no way of finding the information in the vast majority of cases where the information remains in the target article. Search sometimes works but often doesn't, especially when the topic is referred to by a different term. Certes (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
You said that "articles are supposed to disambiguate other articles" but that only sort of applies in cases where the article title does that or when providing a hatnote is workable. In all other cases, it is disambiguation pages that disambiguate article topics outside of search. Citations have never been required on DABs, but article content changing is simply a fact of life on Wikipedia, and absent technical solutions or draconian policies forcing editors to check for DABs/redirects, there's not much we can do about it. In any case, the scope of DABMENTION isn't really suitable to discuss in NOT. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Longstanding consensus is that dabs do not contain citations or References sections, but that's hardly relevant. We're discussing how to guide the reader, armed only with a name for the topic they seek, to the correct article. Anyone wanting to read about the planet need only type in Venus. If they wanted the deity, a hatnote refers them to Venus (mythology). If they wanted a more obscure topic such as Venus (1929 film), it's on Venus (disambiguation), also accessible via hatnote. That also applies to the Gillette Venus razor, even though that is a redirect to section rather than a whole article, and to Venus, a yellow fluorescent protein derivative, even though that entry does not use a redirect. It makes no sense to conceal this information just in case it might be removed at some point in the future. Certes (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Patar and I are getting bogged down in technicalities while the crux of the matter is that removing the information from the DABS is FAR less helpful than keeping it there, and needing to fix it should it ever become needed at some unknown point... Huggums537 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I think I get your point, but it is unlikely that a mention of the band Atomic Mass would be permanently removed from the history section of Def Leppard. But there are certainly unnotable subjects that are mentioned in passing that could easily be deleted without significant loss to the article. For another example that highlights similar area of notability vs passing mention—should there be a hatnote on Paul Hampshire (Scottish footballer) referencing the bassist Paul Hampshire who briefly played in the Atomic Mass band? I don't think so, but I think part of what some folks have been grousing about is a perception that DABMENTION somehow mandates such listing of unnotable persons. older ≠ wiser11:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Narrowly oppose. First, I'm not a huge fan of the "see other guidelines" approach (and, small note: there probably shouldn't be a comma before "or"). It'd be one thing if MOS:DABMENTION were a long or hard to summarize guideline, but it's ... very much not. It seems like it provides ... one sentence about when a link should be included? So why not summarize it here? "just the ones that are of value to the reader"?. If the goal is to get rid of WP:DAB, it seems like it'd be more appropriate to have an RFC on that.Second, I also wonder if this proposal will change anything. Bear with me: How do we define "of value to the reader"? Presumably, not every reader counts—if even one person would find the information useful, would there be any limit on inclusion? At the same time, it's not like "the average reader" is an appropriate stand-in either. So there's some inherent ambiguity here. And, from what I understand, the current debates on this site are essentially already geared towards whether or not it's "of value to the reader" to, for example, have disambiguation pages with no wikilinks to titles that contain the name of the disambiguation page (like, as User:BilledMammal noted, Adam Boyle). And to be clear, on that issue, I'm not sure! Perhaps turning disambiguation pages into, essentially, fancy search engine results is the way to go. But, again, I think there should be an RFC on that rather than using the change suggested here.I do want to note that I initially agreed that the use of "notable" is a bit confusing and should probably be changed or at least clarified. I understand that the policy is using the term in the colloquial sense—in the same way that Boyle says "Notable people with the surname include:" before listing, among others, Adam Boyle (none of whom are notable enough for a Wikipedia article). I get it. But notable has a Wikipedia-specific sense ... and it seemed strange to me to invoke the term on a policy page when not referencing the Wikipedia-specific sense. That said, this isn't the only policy or guideline that uses notable in the colloquial sense—not even close. And the insistence on replacing it seems like a solution searching for a problem. How often has the use of the word notable actually resulted in, say, deletion decisions actually premised on "fails notability guidelines"?--Jerome Frank Disciple22:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Re your final paragraph: thrice, I believe, of which one was actually deleted. But there is concern that this could be precedent for thousands more deletions (for that is the intention), all based one stray phrasing. You raise a very good point about the notable phrasing in that it's very commonplace on disambiguation pages not necessarily referring to capital N notable, as is the case in this guideline. If the passage isn't simply deleted (at this point my preference), and even if it is, then sweeping around the various policies and guidelines to replace small n notables with noteworthies would be a good idea. J947 † edits07:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh also—and I don't want to get into any prolonged disagreement on this, particularly because I imagine you and I mostly agree—I'm not sure I would say AfDs fit what I meant.
If a disambiguation page has no wikilinks that share the disambiguation page's title (like Adam Boyle), there's at least an argument that the name itself is not notable, and therefore not deserving of a mainspace page. (To be clear: I'm not at all saying I agree with that interpretation.) That's not necessarily the same as saying "disambiguation pages should only include links to pages that share their article title". In other words, someone could consistently think both (1) we shouldn't have a disambiguation page unless we have at least 1 (or perhaps 2) articles with the same name as the disambiguation page title and (2) disambiguation pages that we do have should also contain noteworthy (not notable) names that don't have wikilinks but are mentioned in WP articles.--Jerome Frank Disciple14:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jerome Frank Disciple, I fail to understand how you think the policy "is using the term in the colloquial sense" when it links directly to the notability guideline? Also, there are huge problems with making references to notability using stray phrasing in any kind of colloquial sense in any of our policies or guidance considering the fact that none of our policies or guidance is based on notability in any kind of colloquial sense so there isn't anything to reference. In other words, nothing in any of our guidance is governed by notability in any kind of a "colloquial sense" so using that as any kind of measuring guideline is nothing more than a slick play on words to use notability where it should not be used in my opinion. Huggums537 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I guess I'm less concerned with huge potential misunderstandings than I am with the frequency of actual misunderstandings. Also, MOS:GENDERID uses the term notable in a sort of interesting way. Now, it's ambiguous: You could read that policy as saying that, for living persons who were not deserving of their own article prior to discarding their last name, their former name should not be included. But, and I only know of this because I often work in crime-related areas, when someone who falls under WP:PERPETRATOR transitions after incarceration, we usually include their former name. (Maybe that's IAR, but the net effect is that we're really using "noteworthy" as the standard.) MOS:VG also captures the concept of notability a few times, although usually they use different language: Noteworthy awards and nominations that contribute to the overall reception should be documented in prose in this section.--Jerome Frank Disciple14:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. Well, I guess I'm less concerned with whatever controversies they have going on over at the gender identity issues area, and even less concerned about the nonsense they have going on over at the video game fanboy area, but I consider both of these areas to be the exceptions to the rule as well as literal and figurative minorities when it comes to what the norm should be on Wikipedia. I have not followed GENDERID closely, but "the fanboys" over at MOS:VG have some pretty radical notions including a belief that notability applies just fine to contents within articles in spite of WP:NNC. The problem with the way MOS:VG are using "Noteworthy" as you just quoted, is that they will also tell you it is not related to notability, but that it means "noteworthy" in the "colloquial sense". However, "noteworthy" does not exist in any "colloquial sense" outside of Wikipedia, and it isn't defined in any meaningful way within Wikipedia either, so it is essentially just circular logic nomenclature used within Wikipedia as a placeholder for "notability" when "notability" would otherwise be considered inappropriate. In other words, if you look up the definition of "noteworthy" in any dictionary you always get the dictionary definition without any expansion on what the possible colloquial meaning of it might be because there isn't one. The only time we refer to "noteworthy" in the "colloquial sense", we are talking about it only from within Wikipedia, but Wikipedia itself also fails to define what "noteworthy" in the "colloquial sense" actually is in any of our guidance or policies so it is really just this abstract nonsensical meaningless jargon. Most especially when people refer to it as being used in the "colloquial sense". I personally am against any options with regards to notability standards applied to content within articles since I believe the notability standard is supposed to be reserved for determining whether a topic warrants an article, not what contents belong in articles per WP:NNC and the whole notability guideline itself. Huggums537 (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
"noteworthy" does not exist in any "colloquial sense" outside of Wikipedia ... wait, what? I mean I think when the colloquial sense is invoked they're invoking the normal dictionary definition and not the Wikipedia policy definition.--Jerome Frank Disciple13:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. It's just like I said. A bunch of wordplay with circular logic and abstract nonsense that doesn't really mean anything. I've heard this before. They will say, "colloquial", but then when you point out there is no "colloquial", they suddenly really meant "normal dictionary definition", so we go right back to square one because there is no policy or guidance on Wikipedia for the "normal dictionary definition" any more than there was for the non-existent "colloquial" definition. Why should we even be talking about why stuff is "noteworthy" enough to be in articles? Shouldn't we be talking about whether it is something else actually policy related, such as whether it is DUE, NOT, etc. We have no business whatsoever discussing if something in an article is "noteworthy". There is no policy for it. Discussing something being "noteworthy" might as well be the same as discussing how popular something is, or how many sales it did as a basis for inclusion. Huggums537 (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "colloquial" means to you, but I'm not seeing the inconsistency there. Having looked into the issue more, I also think you're sort-of plainly wrong in suggesting that noteworthiness (or a related concept) doesn't play a role in content decisions. For example, MOS:TIMELINE says, "Ensure that list items have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the item to be included in the text of the article." What is "importance to the subject" but a synonym for noteworthiness? As I said above, I think a noteworthy criterium captures or is reflected in several policies or guidelines related to content, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SUMMARY. And, regardless of the philosophical framing, it will always be the case that noteworthiness is considered on some level. If you accept that an article shouldn't include some things, then you're going to have to make noteworthiness decisions—either explicitly or via a proxy measure (e.g., "oh if this aspect is only covered by this % of sources, we'll pretend that proportion is 0 and won't include it per WP:DUE").---Jerome Frank Disciple13:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm not suggesting noteworthiness (or a related concept) doesn't play a role in content decisions. I'm saying it shouldn't. What is plainly wrong is you quoting MOS:TIMELINE out of context as a complete sentence, but the full quote contains a comma and goes on to say, Ensure that list items have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the item to be included in the text of the article, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). The problem here is just like I have been talking about. They seem to be referencing policies or guidelines that have nothing to do with anything, and trying to use this noteworthiness concept as a proxy for notability. If there is truly a a synonym for noteworthiness as you suggest there is, then the right link to the proper guidance would be to INDISCRIMINATE or SUMMARY just as you have suggested, not MOS:TRIVIA, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with lists. That guidance isn't just wrong, it is plain stupid. Huggums537 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
In other words, these expressions of "related concepts" or guidance that is "synonymous" to noteworthiness is simply just more abstract nonsense that isn't actually solidified anywhere in guidance, or if it is, then it is not in line with guidance or policy itself. Also, I think the dictionary definition of noteworthy is very much a debatable difference from "importance to the subject". That is why we should not be using it as a measuring stick without it being a solid guideline because you will have people doing exactly what you are doing now, which is switching back and forth between saying it means the dictionary definition or it actually a synonym/proxy for something else whether it be NOT/DUE/Notability or whatever. I think it is probably more true that it is being used as a proxy, and if that is the case it would be better/less confusing to just use the real thing instead... Huggums537 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The second part of the MOS:TIMELINE sentence doesn't negate the first. You can't read out "importance to the subject".
And, again, the noteworthiness decisions are inherent. You can try to use a proxy for them, but you have to make them essentially once you concede that Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain every verifiable fact. (How do you decide which details should go in a main article and which details should go in a fork re: WP:SUMMARY?). Idk, this seems a bit like a philosophical campaign that isn't related to on-the-ground editing. Regardless, we've probably discussed this enough. I remain opposed to the proposed change, but I could be open to another change.--Jerome Frank Disciple15:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's very perceptive of you because it kind of is a philosophical thing, but I would say it does have a whole lot to do with on-the-ground editing though. But, yeah I would agree with you we are about done here. I've already made the point that we already have policies to cover why articles shouldn't contain every verifiable fact without having to introduce "abstract synonyms" for them so there's no reason to continue to beat that drum like a dead horse. Have a great day. Huggums537 (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Thus, in my view, the micromanaging of how awards are written in video game articles might as well be written as, The most popular awards and nominations that contribute to the overall reception should be documented in prose in this section. or The highest grossing awards and nominations that contribute to the overall reception should be documented in prose in this section. because in terms of how policy compliant that bit of guidance is they all look just about equal to me in that regard even if they don't all make the most sense. Huggums537 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This pinging is fine. I would have done so if I knew what the limitation was. I once heard an admin say it was 20 users so I've always assumed it was that. Thanks for the info. Huggums537 (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Neither wording above is ideal: how about " ... just the ones on whom Wikipedia provides information"? Or even "Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith but are a list of links to help readers find the information the encyclopedia contains on people of that name."
This page is not the place for detailed guidance on the content of disambiguation pages. PamD07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Huggums537: If you believe you can fix DABMENTION (whose flaws were a major point of contention the last time this was attempted, and which is a page that has far less traffic than this one and therefore likely reflects a weaker consensus), then your time would have been better-spent trying to do that first rather than trying to shackle this page to WP:DABMENTION as it stands; as it is, I can only evaluate your proposal based on the effect it would have today. And as I said last time, my opposition is so strident because of my perception that many of the people supporting this proposal then, and presumably now, are doing so specifically with the intent that any mention of anything anywhere in Wikipedia would be sufficient for an incoming DAB link, which I definitely oppose. Personally I feel that notability (and, more properly, WP:DUE) are the only appropriate ways to determine what goes into a DAB and the only things that really matter; DABMENTION, a mere MOS whose serious flaws show the limited attention it has received, isn't really that important and should probably be trimmed down and made more cautious in its wording rather than having policies defer to it - rewording it to remove the discussed within another article bit, in particular. Obviously any DAB must be at an absolute bare minimum discussed in its target, but that's necessary, not sufficient, and is not worth mentioning here or there. The wording should make it completely clear that a mere mention in the target article is insufficient reason for a DAB link and does not justify one on its own - notability and WP:DUE are the criteria. And more importantly, please stop bludgeoning the discussion - you've replied to almost every oppose so far (including one that complained about how opposition was bludgeoned the last time this discussion occurred!) You know that this proposal failed once already, and your new version of it doesn't seem to have addressed any of the reasons why it failed. It's fine to test the waters on a previously-failed proposal in a WP:CCC way, but it doesn't make any sense that you're acting so surprised that people are opposed to a suggestion that you know failed once already. Knowing that this was a controversial suggestion, if you felt you had an actual answer or compromise that would address the opposition, you really ought to have brought it up before creating the RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I can fix DABMENTION, but I do think DABMENTION is the place where this needs to be fixed, and I think it is better to "shackle" this policy to more accurate guidance than to "shackle" it to a notability guideline that offers very little information about DABs. Also, this idea about a mere MOS is confusing since every MOS is in the category of "guideline" just as the notability guidance is. That would be like me saying, "notability is merely a guideline". Huggums537 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Is DABMENTION in the Manual of Style exist in harmony with the Disambiguation editing guideline? To me, it seems that the two pages are similar, but provide distinct guidance. Perhaps we should align the two pages before changing language here. --Enos733 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Enos733, if we're putting a self-imposed ban on linking to the proper guidance with the rationale that our guidance is not in harmony, then we'd never be able to link to any guidance because it has been pointed out over and over again about the vast amounts of contradictions that are preventing our guidance from being in harmony. Huggums537 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I would say it helps the community when we link to multiple guidance pages and those pages are in alignment. As is, I prefer PamD's language above or if we do want to link to the MOS and editing guideline, we should say something like "..are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith as further explained in the MOS and editing guidelines." - Enos733 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I guess I'm just confused as to why you would suggest to say something about a MOS, but not link to any certain one. I don't see how that would be any more helpful to an editor needing more information about disambiguation than linking to the notability guideline would be. Huggums537 (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I think so. I think it is better to not point to DABMENTION, but instead to the MOS page about disambiguation (and/or the editing guideline). But, I am not sure what problem that you are trying to solve. - Enos733 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I think my only goal is to simply have the policy point to more accurate guidance than the generalized notability guideline that really has very little to do with DABs. It seems like the most logical and productive benefit to editors. Huggums537 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I think DAB should use the guidance *for* being in a DAB list, not direct folks to a lot about for whether or not something should have a WP article. If folks prefer that DAB be limited to articles, then *say* that, and do not use an English word with other meanings that redirects to the whether or not to make an article. Cutting to the chase or using a DAB guidance would also eliminate a guidance conflict because N is pointing to only things of title X and DABMENTION is including things of subtitle X. (I personally prefer that, but if consensus is title-only, then the adjustment should be at DAB MENTION and that link get used here.) Having two guidances just always opens things to disconnects. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Are DAB pages "Wikipedia articles"? I have them as not normal content pages and thus abide by different rules from policies like V, NOR, NPOV, and particularly NOT. To that end, I don't see the need to mention DAB here...a better example in the context of NOT would be school alumni lists, where each person listed should be a standalone notable article. --Masem (t) 15:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are not articles. WP:NOTDIRECTORY says that Wikipedia articles are not: [list of bad things], so its prohibitions do not apply to dabs (although some of its advice is also useful in dabs). The root of this problem may be that a sentence about disambiguation pages sneaked into a section which applies only to articles and, after being universally and rightly ignored for nine years because no one noticed it, was misread as evidence of consensus that dabs must only contain entries sufficiently notable (in the WP:N sense) to have an entire article of their own. Certes (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I would agree that by separating the NOTDUR issue from dab pages, as a new and different iterate, would be much smarter that trying to account for both here. Masem (t) 23:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The RFC question is non-neutral! We need to stop this RFC now!
Your side is losing, isn't it?
The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?
The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
I repeat this in plain language: If you personally are voting to oppose a proposal, then you personally should not be touching the RFC question, no matter how bad it seems to you. You need to ask someone else to handle it instead of boldly re-writing other people's signed comments/questions to say something different from what they posted. I believe this point has been mentioned to you in the past. Please do better in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
It’s never been mentioned to me, and I’ve never had reason to read that talk page; it’s a bizarre location to try to include supplemental instructions. It also appears that those instructions haven’t been vetted by the community; you wrote them last year without any apparent discussion.
If you want them to be followed, please get consensus to add them to the main page. Further, unless you believe the original opening statement was neutral I don’t see any issue with my edit.
If you want to discuss this further please take it to my talk page; this is not the appropriate location for this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Since you are changing this RFC's question, here is the appropriate place to discuss whether you have any business doing that.
@WhatamIdoing, thank you so much for bringing this up because I think it is very important to understand those rules for a fair and impartial RFC process to occur, but just to play devil's advocate, I can't honestly say @BilledMammal had any kind of nefarious intent because the original refactoring has the appearance that he was possibly trying to be helpful since he assisted in correctly formatting the RFC with the addition of a survey and discussion section that I forgot to add when I somewhat hastily created this RFC. If it was exclusively refactoring without any helpful edits, then maybe the thought of taking him to Ani for breaking the rules might have crossed my mind, but my excuse for not going to the drama boards (other than the fact that I loathe taking anyone to Ani) is the fact that helpful edits were also made. However, I do remember having a very similar concern about the previous RFC being fair and impartial, so it is still very good that you mentioned this here since this is even more concerning than that was. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The TPG says that changing other's comments can be "irritating", but in the case of an RFC, if you disagree with the person who started the RFC, then appearances begin to matter, too. Merely looking like you're re-writing the question leads people to wonder if you've twisted it, which leads them to wonder about the integrity of the RFC process. It's a line of suspicion that is destructive to community, to collegial discussion, and to successful dispute resolution. No matter how bad it is, fixing someone else's question to say The Right™ Thing is a temptation that really needs to be resisted.
Put another way: On contentious RFCs, you usually need to decide whether you want to clerk or vote, because doing both upsets people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The question remained unchanged; the statement changed - the meaning remained intact. This is in line with standard practice where we don’t consider the opening statement of an RFC to be “owned” by an individual to the same extent we consider other talk page contributions, which is why we permit statements to be signed with just a date and why your own FAQ permits other editors to modify the statement - you only disagree on which editors are allowed to do it.
However, this is not the appropriate location, both of you are making comments about conduct, not content, so I will not continue discussing this here. As I said, if you want to discuss it further please bring it to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Just a technical note: the question and the meaning of it was changed. I think this is why @WhatamIdoing, posted the information about the rules here to begin with, because the loyal opposition have such difficultly to objectively make an assessment on their own bias about whether what they are doing is actually fair or impartial. Huggums537 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with the decision that WAID made to bring this up here. If it were exclusively a conduct issue, then maybe I might have said, sure take it to a talk page or a drama board, but this also involves the alteration of content that other editors should be made aware of. Taking to a private talk page, and depriving participants of knowledge about the content issue is inappropriate. I don't think sending people to a personal talk page for a conduct issue is appropriate unless someone actually intended to pursue a conduct issue with warnings or Ani notices, and nobody here appears to have any interest in doing that. Huggums537 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We should scrap this proposal and start over with a proposal to remove the line about disambiguation pages from WP:NOT altogether. We are not bound by overly broad generalizations. We can come up with a much better guideline for what sorts of WP:DABMENTION topics can or can not be included on a disambiguation page. BD2412T19:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Searching briefly through the archives, I see @Masemsaying in 2012 that after the long slog of NLISTS, "The only absolute agreement we could make for when lists could be exempt from notability was if they were disambiguation lists." That aligns with my memory, and I have no reason to believe that the community's views, or its practical behavior wrt creating (or not) dab pages have changed since then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This sounds good to me. It seems like a lot of opposition here is more grounded in concerns about the proposed replacement text than in affection for the existing text. Visviva (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The more I think about the idea of scrapping, and getting rid of the whole thing about disambiguation, the more supportive I am about it. I also think it is in line with the majority of the community view since both sides of the debate have expressed this idea that policy should not contain links to MOS or guidelines, and since the current policy is linking to the guidelines about notability, and DABs, plus an essay about the MOS, it makes sense to scrap the whole thing. Huggums537 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Forgot to mention it before, but fully support removing the line on dab pages from a section as it isn't really applicable. It certainly has confused more than helped. J947 † edits23:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment: This section has now been split out into a formal RfC here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Alteration_to_NOTDIRECTORY. I think it might be appropriate to maybe merge this discussion into that one, but I'm not sure if something like that has ever been done before, or if it even should be. At any rate, I will at least courtesy ping all the editors who participated here to notify them this discussion has been continued elsewhere. @BD2412, Firefangledfeathers, Visviva, WhatamIdoing, Masem, Patar knight, and J947:
Post-close disruption
@Aquillion, BilledMammal, and Jc37: I have fully protected the page because of your repeated reverting of each other. If any of you dispute the close then discuss it at AN. When the issue has been resolved any uninvolved admin should feel free to downgrade that to the preceding indefinite semi-protection (placed for reasons unrelated to the current dispute). Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
It is clear that the vast majority of editors want to see the policy stay; however how about clarification? This policy does not, within its current meaning, say that articles bound by the policy, e.g. version history articles, are outright banned. It says to use common sense on the amount of detail to include, and only states exaustiveness, e.g. listing comprehensive release notes for every little change, but major feature highlights and version summarizations (e.g. as seen on Fedora Linux release history and Ubuntu version history) should not run afoul of this. So, instead of removing the policy outright (which after having thought about it is indeed a bad idea as it could result in more copyvio happening), how about clarifying the policy to allow highlights of major features and version summarizations directly, while disallowing comprehensive detail such as change-by-change release notes? The previous RFC specifically focused on removal, and clarification wasn't really discussed, so it might be better to have a second RFC. This is what I personally had in mind:
Current wording
Exhaustive logs of software updates Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include.
Suggested
Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include; e.g. comprehensive release notes of individual software versions should be excluded, while major feature highlights and version summarizations should follow the policy on reliable third-party sourcing.
With changes of course to perhaps improve wording and remove unnecessary word duplication. But the policy in its current state is open to vast misinterpretation, and has been misinterpreted to turn exhaustiveness into saying that version history articles are straight up not allowed. So I am seeking opinions and debate on whether or not this policy should be clarified. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment - To add on, there is no reason to assume that version history articles can't be enyclopedic or notable, even if tables are used for example. Tables aren't bad, if they were they wouldn't be supported on Wikipedia to begin with. I do agree that editors have found it okay to include change-by-change release notes, especially on certain OS-related version history articles, however if they can be condensed down to only have highlights or version summaries instead of entire release notes with signfiicant, reliable, and third-party sourcing, wouldn't that be okay? - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Tables of change logs tend to end up as tables with bullet-point lists within some cells that give the effective appearance of a changelog, particularly when it is written in the same tech-speak language most changelogs are written in. Its why we do want summaries of key features, writing more in a prose form, though can still be organized in a table to identify version numbers and release dates. Masem (t) 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
(Summoned by bot) Ubuntu version history is (imho) exactly what we should have on Wikipedia (well, the sourcing could be improved to rely less heavily on primary sources, but besides that; we do not require WP:PERFECTion). Your proposed wording captures this well, so support. On a related note, I don't think tables are inherently bad, but I do think we have a problem if tables make up almost the entire article. HouseBlastertalk11:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm okay with the above proposed clarifications, but article organization and content is properly an MOS issue, and not one for WP:NOT. --Jayron3212:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know that a formal RfC is strictly necessary for the specific wording of text that's just a rewording of existing consensus. I mostly like this, although it is not verbatim what I would write if I were to go do it myself. I think some prominence should be given to some of the specific items agreed on at the original discussion in Archive 45, as well as the broader point that the policy was explicitly amended so as to permit version history articles (and indeed tables) so long as they summarized significant modifications rather than listing every patch note in full detail (to wit: "effectively ban changelogs for minor software packages, but allow significant changes in more notable software to be included"). jp×g13:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@JoelleJay, who reverted my edits on WP:NOT despite Archive 45, seems to think otherwise. When I brought it up on their talk page, they said the consensus doesn't matter, even though the prev. RFC was strictly only dealing with removal of the policy, which I backtracked on. As I stated in this RFC removal of the policy shouldn't take place after all. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
You cannot just change policy to reflect your interpretation of the results of a 9-year-old discussion among like 8 editors, on a currently heavily contested topic, and expect those changes to be retained. As I said in the revert, adding in examples of what details are exempted from NOTCHANGELOG is a major deviation from the current wording and should achieve consensus. The last clause is also still nonsensical (whatpolicy on third-party sourcing?). JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:RS is not a policy, and it does not contain any relevant language on third-party sourcing, so that clause makes no sense.
Of course the age of a discussion matters. An informal proposal with 8 participants that fizzled out without closure 9 years ago is not a reflection of current consensus. Additionally: Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system
You're joking right? WP:RS literally opens up with the following:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
This literally is effective policy. No articles on Wikipedia should exist without reliable sourcing...but if you want to get technical, proper sourcing policies to follow would be WP:V, and WP:PRIMARY, but WP:RS is still effective policy as both of these policies mention it. I'd love to know how you're coming up with these arguments because they aren't exactly valid... - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Please review WP:POLICIES to understand what a policy is. Guidelines != policies. WP:RS: This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline.
What you quote from WP:RS says nothing about third-party/independent sourcing. WP:V references independent sources in its "notability" section, but does not provide instruction on what they are or whether/how they can be used for non-notability purposes; WP:PRIMARY discusses primary/secondary sources and mentions that these may or may not be independent, but does not otherwise describe what this means. Therefore, neither of these can be the "policy" we are supposed to follow for NOTCHANGELOG, which applies a third-party restriction to specific content irrespective of notability. If you are just trying to reference the definition of "third-party", well, there's a reason it is not already wiki-linked in NOTCHANGELOG and why the parenthetical there exists. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose any rephrasing including "common sense". It is clear from the massive RFC above that the common sense test does not work in this situation. The inclusion of the phrase 'common sense' in the existing policy is a problem because people clearly disagree on what is common sense. We need a wording that is more explicit and instructive. It should, at a minimum, define what an 'exhaustive log of software updates' is, provide a remedy, and then talk about sourcing. WP:NOT is definitional to the encyclopedia. It should include definitions. Sourcing instructions are secondary to that. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Hmm. I understand where you're coming from. I don't like the common sense wording either - everyone has a different definition for what is "common sense", same as to how everyone could have different opinions on what "exhaustive" means. I am not the best at phrasing, but I guess I could take a crack at it. In my eyes, an exhaustive log of software updates would be a very comprehensive listing of versions that include very technical details that most readers do not care about (e.g. build numbers and code names, unless a code name is part of that version's marketing - this is very common with Ubuntu releases, e.g. Ubuntu 23.04 Lunar Lobster), and extensive release notes detailing every single change made to an individual software version, e.g. iOS 16.4.1. Extensive release notes on version history articles should be avoided due to the potential risk of copyright violations, especially if release notes aren't made available on a permissive basis, and the fact that they aren't very encyclopedic. Comprehensive and extensive are terms that have pretty solid meanings, and they're typically understood by most people to mean "complete". Below is what I think could be used instead, if the example I gave isn't that great (tweaks, fixes, and improvements to wording welcome because I am not an expert in English, lol):
Exhaustive logs of software updates. An exhaustive log of software updates is a log of software updates that includes intricate details that most readers are not interested in, such as a build number or code name (unless used to refer to that software version publicly), and comprehensive release notes covering every change to an individual software version in extensive detail. Information that matches this criteria should be excluded, while highlights of major features and version summaries should use reliable, third-party sources.
I am by far not the best at phrasing things, but this is my initial take on what the policy could look like with your opinion taken into consideration. It's probably not very good, but it would be a start I think. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 16:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
100% agree with Jayron & HouseBlaster, and won't repeat their points. Axem Titanium is right that we should focus on defining "exhaustive". DFlhb (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose rephrasing - The premise on which this amendment is being proposed is that changelogs are permitted, however there is no consensus to this effect, quite the opposite in fact. FOARP (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, there is a consensus that changelogs should not happen, but there are still two matters: 1) disagreement over what kinds of content counts as a "changelog", and 2) Disagreement over how to handle changelogs (improve the article or delete it). None of these represents any disagreement over the PAG itself. --Jayron3215:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no lack of clarity over what failure of WP:NOT results in - it is WP:DELREASON #14.The above proposal appears to be an attempt to define a carve-out wherein change-logs could still be maintained, as is indicated by the references to change-log articles that should be "OK". For the avoidance of doubt, yes this is a changelog. FOARP (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Lots of what is written at the WP:NOT page is guidance on how to write articles, not on deletion. Some violations of WP:NOT may merit deletion, but some may just merit some cleanup. Deletion reasons are not mandatory. We don't have to delete every single article that contains some possible violation of something written in WP:NOT. Sometimes, the problems can be fixed by normal editing. --Jayron3215:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Not if the article is literally "Version history of XXXX", in that case what you have is a change log. "History of XXXX" would be a different story, but also a very different article. FOARP (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Back down, Evelyn. I may be an admin, but my comments here hold no more weight than do FOARP's. We disagree, but I don't "win" because I have access to a few more editing tools than they do. Arguments are judged on their merits, not on who makes them. --Jayron3211:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
No, it is not a changelog. A changelog is a complete, entire list of changes to a given software version. Feature highlights alone do not count towards this, therefore your supposed claim is null and void. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@FOARP: I don't think this is true. The discussion in R45, which is as far as I can tell the totality of this policy's basis, reached unanimous consensus that version history articles should be protected. That's literally the reason that the policy was written at the time. Here is the first item of the proposal: "Require changelog items to have reliable third-party sources. This will still effectively ban changelogs for minor software packages, but allow significant changes in more notable software to be included". Has there been some subsequent consensus to expand it to "all version history articles should be deleted"? There have certainly been people claiming at AfD that it does say this, but I have not seen anyone argue that it should say this. jp×g22:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
That literally is not what I'm proposing?! I'm proposing rewording to allow "X version history" articles to exist, if they aren't sorely focused on changelogs, and even then, if changelogs weren't allowed, whats the point of even having exhaustive? Your opposition to this makes zero sense to me. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, I'm proposing the wording be changed to disallow exhaustive and complete release notes, but allow bullet point feature highlights and version summaries, e.g. like in Ubuntu version history (which I wikilinked above). Articles like those do NOT count towards a changelog. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I removed the tables due to the comprehensive detail they had and the fact that they were barely sourced, but I do intend on bringing them back once I figure out how to best add them back, but splitting them off is a bad idea - I strongly oppose that. and not to mention, this is the wrong place to show your support for that. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment - Just a reminder that any article that is solely dedicated to a product/service provided by an organisation (commercial or not, regardless of whether it is for-profit or not) has to pass WP:NCORP, particularly WP:AUD. The idea some people seem to have here that you can produce an article that is manifestly entirely dedicated to a product/service based solely on highly specialist media of dubious reliability, and the website of the organisation that produces that product/service, is frankly for the birds. FOARP (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Evelyn Marie, try creating putting an article about a piece of software produced by a company based on a specialist webzine and the company's own website through articles for creation and let me know how the whole "WP:CORP is not enforceable" thing goes. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
not as strongly enforced* if it was a straight up strict policy then yeah it would severely matter but whether or not a news source focuses on a given company doesn’t make it any less reliable if it’s still editorially independent. it would be different if it was sponsored by a company, but most companies don’t sponsor independent publications. but anyways unless it’s converted to a policy you can’t reasonably enforce it, it would kill a severe amount of news sources that people use for articles despite them still being editorially independent and reliable. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 09:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Guidelines are not "policies you can ignore" and policies are not "guidelines that must be followed at all costs". Policies and guidelines serve different purposes, and both should be followed unless you're prepared to defend a specific edit or action that runs counter to them. --Jayron3211:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, and if the intent here is to amend/disapply WP:CORP (especially WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND) that has to be defended on its own merits. It has been repeatedly asserted that all that is needed is specialist press coverage, but coverage beyond that is needed for these articles to be included under WP:CORP. There is no obvious reason to distinguish between articles about updates to a piece of software and, say, articles about updates to the Big Mac, the Porsche 911, or New Coke: these are all products/services produced by organisations for consumption by others. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
A lot of strongly-held views are just being restated, which can't plausibly move us towards a resolution. Not trying to play "discussion police", but before posting, please consider whether a comment is intended to achieve a concrete change in this policy, or just turning battle-lines into deep trenches. DFlhb (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Counterproposal to RFC on WP:NOTCHANGELOG clarification
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AddA list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead. to NOTCHANGELOG, taken from the WP:GAMECRUFT guideline.
Support as proposer. We should learn from WikiProject Video games. They had the same changelogs, debated them, and removed them, without the need for community intervention (see how it used to be: [5][6][7][8][9][10], now all turned into prose). It appears that they tried the "keep and let others improve" approach and it didn't work out, so they removed the tables (not AfD, still in the revision history). That was apparently the only effective solution to finally get people to write good prose and avoid cruft.
Possible flaw: I think tables that list all major versions, like Template:Windows 10 versions, should still be allowed. Anyone have an idea how to rephrase this? Perhaps this would be best addressed through a Computing MOS alone, rather than a change to NOTCHANGELOG. DFlhb (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - This would kill the existence of iOS version history, and would outright ban articles like Ubuntu version history from existing at all - what i mean is your wording runs opposite of each other, saying "avoid a list of every version" while saying "consider a summary of development instead" runs directly contradictory to that first part. So no. I find this proposal to be outright nonsensical. There wouldn't have even been an issue here if people didn't straight up copy/paste release notes for major versions into the tables to begin with - there is nothing wrong with having a detailed listing of versions and their release dates along with feature highlights if they are reliably sourced - iOS especially gets an absolute insane amount of coverage, thereby making even minor iOS releases notable. So I'm sorry but I honestly severely oppose this. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Additionally I am going to quote what MASEM said above to here - even they agree that tables are ok if they aren't super comprehensive in terms of change-by-change detail, at least from what I'm gathering:
Tables of change logs tend to end up as tables with bullet-point lists within some cells that give the effective appearance of a changelog, particularly when it is written in the same tech-speak language most changelogs are written in. Its why we do want summaries of key features, writing more in a prose form, though can still be organized in a table to identify version numbers and release dates. - MASEM
That is what they said. If we avoid tech-speak, and write strictly in prose even in the tables while avoiding detail on severely minor things like bug fixes and every single security fix under the sun, wouldn't that no longer violate WP:CHANGELOG and avoid the need for this proposal altogether? The only reason I can gather as to why the tables were removed from the system software articles were because system software for consoles never received a significant amount of coverage, especially when majority of them were severely minor in scope with only performance improvements, so the ability to write prose in the tables wasn't really possible, however in iOS' case specifically, like I mentioned, it receives an insane amount of news coverage, even for minor updates. As an example, even The Indian Times covered the 16.4.1 Rapid Security Response, and that is like the most minor of minor updates where it only had like one security fix. So obviously the security responses alone would be excluded from the tables. But side note, even now the system software articles are still not that well written. Back on topic though, I genuinely do not believe that tables are a sin to the point of outright banning (especially when something is notable enough it should be covered on Wikipedia, which again, iOS updates are typically covered in-depth by a billion news outlets), and so I severely dislike this proposal in general. Exhaustive release notes should be avoided, I agree. But tables are the best way to detail iOS releases. I genuinely do not understand how, since the iOS version history article's creation back in 2008-2009, the article is now now all of a sudden getting so much controversy by a minor group of editors despite the broad consensus that the tables were fine. Archive 45, the basis of which the current revision of the change log policy was even based on to begin with, was based on the idea that tables should be allowed, but should not be extremely in-depth as to the amount of detail.
I do agree that the iOS version history article, for the longest time, went above and beyond of what it should've been in terms of detail, but the tables themselves were not the reason why. The obscene amount of detail in the changes column combined with the fact that people had a tendency to pretty much rip off Apple's release notes was the main factor. However, if we can avoid that, I see no reason why for that article specifically we can't avoid breaking WP:CHANGELOG. Feature highlights and sentences that briefly detail the changes made to an iOS update do not violate this. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 15:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Support - Essentially what we should be aiming for is a summary-level explanation of the history of the product, assuming that the product's history is notable per WP:CORP. That's what encyclopaedias do: they summarise. They do not list exhaustively. There is no reason why software should be treated any different to any other product/service in this regard. Would anyone believe that a complete listing of all the updates to the Happy Meal was appropriate (and yes, sourcing exists: 123)? Every different toy included and every different ingredient-change explained? No? So why do the equivalent of that for software? If the argument is "but software is important/useful" that's an old fallacy hereabouts and anyway my kids would definitely argue the importance of the Happy Meal.
Arguments predicated on this or that previously existing article need to look hard at WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is no reason why any of the existing change-log articles need to be kept in their present form.
DFlhb's proposal is a sane one that should be given serious consideration. That computer games are close to (I would say identical with actually, since they are both ultimately software) the topics under discussion is patently obvious now that they have mentioned it. Why, indeed, should we have a version history of World of Warcraft, or Eve Online, or Fortnite, rather than just summarising their history? And if not these then why Firefox which is ultimately just a browser? FOARP (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
....Except software like iOS constantly evolves through minor software versions, e.g. 16.1, 16.3, etc. There is no easy way to summarize that, which is why tables exist - tables allow summarizing without having a billion paragraphs of prose on each individual software version in a version history article. Video games barely get major updates, except for live-service games, but the vast majority of games are completed before they even ship. Software like mobile operating systems are vastly different in that they continuously get updated on a monthly basis, in the case of iOS. Tables are severely useful to summarize the changes of software versions, and they cannot be adequately summarized in prose. So no. I disagree. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 15:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jayron32 Except it should because like I've said a billion times now - iOS as a piece of software is severely notable, so notable to the point of receiving significant coverage on even Rapid Security Responses. This line of thinking is in my opinion disrespectful to iOS' importance as a piece of software that billions of people rely on to live their lives. Maybe you might not think detail like that is important, but you're only one person out of the 8+ billion people that exist on this planet, or the hundreds of millions of people who read Wikipedia on a daily basis. Making the content Wikipedia can contain more restrictive, despite the fact that iOS versions (including minor ones) receive significant coverage, and in the iOS version history article's case specifically, it is one that has received significant page views and so is clearly important, is counter to the reason why Wikipedia is so popular, and why the iOS version history article is so popular to begin with as well - people have found immense value in the tables and have said so as such on its talk page as well. While having immense detail in them runs counter to Wikipedia's summarizing goal, maybe that shouldn't be the only thing Wikipedia focuses on? Not everything needs to be summarized, nor should it be. If it was, as an example we could summarize WWII to only say "WWII was a global war that happened from 1939 to 1945, and resulted in tens of millions of casualties." and leave it at that, leaving the page significantly empty. But no. A significant amount of detail to adequately cover that subject is required, and the same applies to iOS as a mere example.
On another note, these policies are ancient, presumably do not reflect what people use Wikipedia for, and we should consider that people use Wikipedia as something other than merely an encyclopedia in 2023. And a small minority of the total group of editors on Wikipedia is not how consensus should be formed either. Most editors never even find out about these discussions, and so do not participate in them. A view that might be shared by one group of editors might not reflect that of another group of editors who don't even know that discussions like these exist, and could be bigger than the other group, which is why this whole process is kinda whack to me. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 16:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Saying it a billion times doesn't make it more right than saying it once. I'm not saying the world <waves hand vaguely at the world> doesn't need the information. It's just that Wikipedia is not the correct place to house it. We're an encyclopedia, consisting of articles that summarize important topics. Let someone else document this information at that level of detail. Wikipedia doesn't need to. --Jayron3216:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jayron32 so then list-class articles should just not exist at all either then? If you feel the need to bring up the whole summarizing thing so strongly, then maybe list-class articles shouldn't exist on Wikipedia either and should be outright banned too. That is precisely why I think this entire counter proposal is so whack. If one thing gets banned, that will lead to more things getting banned and/or restricted, and then Wikipedia as a whole will become significantly less useful, which is not what Wikipedia should be aiming for. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I never said that. You're the first person to say that right now. Please don't put words in my mouth I did not say. --Jayron3216:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jayron32 I didn't say you said that either. I gave an example. Wikipedia is a significantly important part of the Internet. Recording major features added in versions of software like iOS is historical especially when something like iOS is used by billions of people, and it is significantly notable, and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. Maybe Firefox doesn't deserve its own version history article due to the fact that Firefox doesn't get significantly new features like iOS does and therefore receives nowhere near as much coverage on its individual software releases, but iOS gets so much coverage its kinda hard to keep track of. I'm specifically trying to argue for iOS version history here purely based on its significant notability, even for minor versions. That is specifically why I disagree with this whole proposal, because it has a chance of killing off valuable articles that definitely have a place on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to notability. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 16:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
You've said so more than once, a "billion times" by your own estimation, which is more than is necessary. Repeating yourself doesn't add more weight to your argument. All it does is overwhelm the discussion and discourage additional voices from being heard. I've made my feelings known below, and I've said enough at this point. I suggest that you probably also have. Let others get a word in; you don't need to repeat yourself every time someone has a different perspective than you do. Your feelings are already well documented. --Jayron3216:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jayron32 I have withdrawn my proposal and RFC, and with that, I am done. I'm tired of being criticized and linked to the same thing over and over again for merely stating my opinion. The only thing I ever tried to do was try and point out the facts. There is valid usefulness to having detail of software releases on Wikipedia if there is significant notability (because Wikipedia is significantly more important than Fandom which is not properly moderated at all) but its clear that due to the fact that the vast majority of people never discover these discussions, it will always be the exact same group of editors voting to either "keep", "delete" and "support" or "oppose" over and over again with no fresh perspectives ever being given. Until these processes change I am done partaking in conversations like these because it is clear that it is severely biased towards very small groups of editors that are impossible to gauge the consensus for, when the same group of editors seem to comment over and over again. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
There you are again, claiming things about me that I didn't do. I've been involved in these conversations for a week or two at most, and I've not disagreed with you over most issues; indeed above I expressed support for your proposal. I've barely interacted with you for more than a few days. Your accusations against me are growing wearisome. --Jayron3217:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jayron32 I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about in general about the numerous times I've been linked to that same policy by numerous editors when I've only tried to state my opinion. Hell, I was even linked to that policy after replying once on an RFD. I apologize for making it seem as if I was talking about you, I wasn't. I was trying to show my ire at the amount of times in general that I've been linked to that policy. And I should note that I was additionally not including you in the "group of editors" - you're perfectly fine, i don't have any issues with you, however I do have issues with editors who find it necessary to comment on every AfD, instead of letting others make their voice heard. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Also Firefox is not "just a browser" - it is a significant piece of software that millions of users rely on to do every day tasks on a computer - it is a fundamentally important piece of software. Arguably more fundamentally important than video games, which while fun, are not fundamental pieces of software that allow users to do everyday tasks. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@FOARP, making an OTHERSTUFF argument against other users while pointing at otherstuff they do over at NCORP and while praising DFlhb for a proposal completely based on otherstuff they do at GAMECRUFT has to be one of the most hilarious things I've had the pleasure to witness today. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Huggums, I get the irony. In my defence, the distinction I’m trying to highlight is between “this thing is in the same class as these other things and the same policies should apply” and “this thing exists so this other thing should exist, regardless of policy”. FOARP (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the former is the "unimpressive interpretation" of an OTHERSTUFF argument denial. If your argument was based on merits of policy alone, and not comparative, you wouldn't have been saying we should "learn" what they are doing over at GAMECRUFT manual of style (a video game manual not meant for all our articles) and take it to use in our policy. Huggums537 (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Updated comment on 10:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
To put it more simply, I think it absolutely is an OTHERSTUFF argument to say that the video game fanboys are using this stuff in their manual so we should put it in our policy. It isn't meant to be an interpretation to impress anyone, but to be very easy to understand. Huggums537 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Evelyn Marie - I'm not an admin, I'm just an average Joe Bloggs on these here boards, so you don't have to listen to what I say if you don't want to, but seriously give WP:BLUDGEON a read and a think, and consider whether it is necessary to respond with what from my (no doubt biased) POV appear to be similar talking points to every comment that you disagree with. Again, I'm just a lowly editor, but when you've edited this page nearly 80 times this month already, meaning that on a page with dozens of contributors you made roughly 1/6th of the edits, could it just be possible that you may be "attempt[ing] to force [your] point of view by the sheer volume of comments [...] contradicting every viewpoint that is different from [your] own .. making the same argument over and over, to different people" and that may not be the best way of getting your point across? FOARP (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The vast majority of those edits were me fixing typos and other mistakes I made - I do that a lot, if you see my contribution history in general for all articles I've ever contributed to. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone but I am allowed to state it. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose; this seems to me quite a bit worse than the current wording. As Evelyn Marie said, it sounds like it would just put the torch to a bunch of articles that have nothing else wrong with them. The way I see it is this: a bunch of people want these articles to go away, and the only reason I have heard is that they interpret this policy to say that. I have not heard any reason why it should say that, and I don't see one here either. To explain what I mean: I believe that policy forbids articles like "List of reasons why Barack Obama is a dick", and also that we shouldn't have them. If it somehow turned out that policy said nothing about this and WP:BLP was a redlink, I might say "Wikipedia is not a repository for polemics about why politicians are dicks", but I would also have an answer for "well, why shouldn't it be". I could still articulate a number of arguments as to what principles suggested we shouldn't have it: it's not written objectively, it's impossible for it to be written objectively, it's impossible for it to be neutrally and reliably sourced, it hampers Wikipedia's mission of providing helpful knowledge, it poses legal issues for the project, it poses political issues for the project, it establishes an untenable precedent that people are allowed to go off on political rants in mainspace, and so on and so on. Here, I do not see a reason for why something like IOS version history is bad, other than "the policy says so": if it doesn't, then it's not, yes? jp×g03:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
There’s a number of reasons why an exhaustive version history of iOS should be outside the scope of this project. Here’s some of them:
1) iOS is a software product that competes on the market against other software products. A complete version history is effectively advertising for it and/or something that the organisations that create it/profit from it should pay for and maintain themselves. This applies equally to open source software like Android, since they are still software products competing on the market and which organisations profit from.
2) Excepting iOS from a general bar on advertising for and exhaustive description of products that compete on the market against other products is not something that is going to stand. It would not be neutral between commercial products and involve us taking sides, so in the end others would be allowed too. We would end up with complete version/feature histories of all products - cars, planes, software, foodstuffs, etc. - that sourcing could be provided for, turning Wikipedia from being an encyclopaedia to being a free general-purpose repository for data about commercial products.
3) Such data is not of interest to our audience, who are the general-interest crowd, not specialists. Indeed, it leads to a wall-of-text that puts them off.
Now you might disagree with the above, and the other arguments on this that have been made by others, but you cannot say that no-one has been able to express any reason why we should bar this kind of content. FOARP (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The existing policy already says in gigantic bold letters that exhaustive lists of every change between versions of software are not permitted, so if this is the thing you're opposed to, we are already in agreement with both each other and the policy, and there is no need to add more stuff to make it more strict. As for points 2 and 3, I would enjoy responding to them but I think first we should see if we do not already have similar opinions here. jp×g08:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The issue is it appears that the gigantic bold letters are not clear enough. This clarifies that what should be done is a summary of the history of the development of the product - a far more human approach leading to a more reasonable and readable structure. Contrast the featured article Development of Grand Theft Auto V with the iOS version-history with its numbered (and numbing) repetition of the phrase "Apple announced that...." which does not give sufficient who/what/where/why/how context. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Support. DFlhb has been the voice of reason on the side of keeping prose "version history" articles so I think that should count for something. The current wording has enough loopholes to drive a truck through and a directive to use "common sense" when no one can agree what's actually common sense to do in this situation. This is a good step toward actually defining terms and providing useful instructions instead of vague generalities. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is currently the shortest of the four points at WP:IINFO. It demands more instruction to serve its purpose. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose taking instructions meant for video game manuals and putting them into our policies meant for all our articles. I never have much liked the way the video game fanboys do things anyway. They have terrible ideas including making content within articles notable. Huggums537 (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reworded on 10:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Support. This seems to be the clarification of changelog we need. On what Evelyn Marie said, I believe a summary of development is by definition of summary not a list of every version. Minor fixes aren’t notable just if lots of sources that routinely cover them cover them, that goes against ROUTINE. EVERY piece of software evolves through minor versions, and that does not mean we have to cover every single one of them. The iOS version history article does not include a list of every version/beta/patch, I do not see why we have to discuss it. Ubuntu version history may be a valid argument, if not for certain unimportant releases that the article pads with a ton of reviews, such as 14.10, so I still support this proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean? Both the iOS and Ubuntu VH articles have subsections for every release. The iOS one is WP:SUMMARY style, but I guess that structure also makes sense for the Ubuntu article. How else would you organize it, if I'm understanding you correctly? DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
For example, 15.2 is not mentioned in the iOS article. For Ubuntu, I think releases like 14.10 should be skipped or restricted to a single line, and these lengthy review quotes should be limited to one paragraph if not removed entirely. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
You have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how releases like Ubuntu 14.10 work, @Aaron Liu. 14.10 was a major release - it wasn't considered minor - they do releases based on the year and month. 14 indcates that its a release made in 2014, and the 10 indicates that it shipped in October. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I know how Ubuntu releases are numbered. However I thought they only released two times a year, once in April and once in October. Are you saying they also release in other months?And if there are minor releases in between, then we would also have no need to discuss Ubuntu, though my point still stands that "uninteresting" releases like 14.10 should be skipped have minimal coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Then the article would be incomplete and would therefore not be encyclopedic. Additionally it would basically imply to readers that Ubuntu received far fewer releases than it did. That is not how a topic should be covered on Wikipedia. Massive release or not they still deserve coverage. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
And regarding your minor releases comment no, there aren't minor releases in between - LTS releases do receive point releases throughout their life cycles, but Ubuntu doesn't release minor releases in between their major releases. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Massive release or not they still deserve coverage. Even if it did, it shouldn't be the absurd 5 paragraphs 500 words! There isn't much to cover, and one sentence would be enough. Plus, I don't think it should be covered, as Ubuntu releases every April and October, which also gives the reader the idea that the number of Ubuntu's releases is kinda meaningless. Such a release is kinda meaningless within the grand scheme of history, just like how we don't cover every Chrome release where the first number is bumped, for a more extreme example. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)So doesn't everything I have said still hold true? What's your point? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Support this seems sensible. Perhaps there will be exceptions worthy of WP:IAR, but, in the vast majority of cases, I think it's quite obvious that detailing every minuscule update in an article is problematic. For one, the number of reliable sources as to each micro-update are typically limited. For two, that level of granular detail is inconsistent with WP:SUMMARY and WP:5P1. (I understand that there's a repeated, and reasonable enough, argument that, essentially, "(1) detailed changelogs are useful and (2) it is useful for those changelogs to be on Wikipedia ... ergo the changelogs are encyclopedic" ... but I think that's been rejected in RFCs often enough that it's not worth relitigating.) Finally, I think DFlhb's example of the transformation of articles in the video game space is aspirational: it is pretty amazing how stark that transformation was, and I think it's pretty apparent that the articles are, now, far superior to what they were. It'd be great if we could pull that off here.--Jerome Frank Disciple22:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Support as obvious. WP:NOT already says that an encyclopedia should not be a complete directory of all things. WP:OR and WP:V both emphasize that we should use reliable, independent, secondary sources to build articles in WP:PROPORTION to how more reliable sources cover it. A summary of development history is appropriate. A directory of all changes is not. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Support - As mentioned above, this is exactly the sort of clarity we need to stop all the disputes about this. Change logs and version histories should be listed at the subject's respective websites, not an encyclopedia. Sergecross73msg me21:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Support I have always understood the base WP:NOTDATABASE policy to exclude software version update logs that are pure lists, this is just making it more clear and obvious. I would prefer the wording "Consider a summary of development instead of a list of every version." to make it sound a bit less like an authoritarian command. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Support I understand from the above that it is important for the list to be complete, but I believe that some releases do not warrant their own paragraph on the list, and should instead be relegated to a single sentence. Also, giant tables are not needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support as the premise of prose text over tables is a much better resource for those with disabilities....like those who use screen readers and the like. Scrolling left right up and down to read tables is simply not the best way to present information..... raw data rarely explains things properly. Some basic info [11].Moxy-02:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support: when secondary sources talk about it, we can summarize it. It’s rare that even secondary sources would go into so much detail, and even then, an exhaustive list or table of all changes is excessive for the purposes of a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article. 67.241.19.222 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. I'm a fan of comprehensiveness, especially when it comes to developer information, but thinking about it this makes sense. A fighting video game like Super Smash Bros. Ultimate has balancing changes to its individual fighters all of the time, but this is undebatedly cruft that we don't include. General changes and patches that happen often are just like this. There usually isn't anything noteworthy in these changes and patches that warrents an inclusion; it's just basic technical maintenence. Stuff like this is noteworthy on the contrary. Panini!•🥪21:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support I think this wording is in line with all the related guidelines and policies that feed into it—the ethos of Wikipedia coverage is summary style relying on secondary sources. Lists of versions and changes are not innately notable, which is why we have CHANGELOG anyhow, and it clearly should be made more explicit. There's no innate difference in software here, whether it's a World of WarCraft patch or a Firefox update. They shouldn't be treated differently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarify what's allowed in sandboxes
I tried to find a clear guideline on what sort of content is allowed in sandboxes, but I couldn't. (I looked in WP:NOT, WP:USER and Help:My sandbox.)
The question came up because I warned a user about their self-promotional vandalism, using the standard first warning template that says "If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox", and the next thing they did was post self-promotion in their sandbox (it's still there as I write, though the user has been indefinitely banned in the meantime).
Does the prohibition against self-promotion on user pages include the sandbox? And would it make sense to clarify this in one of the guidelines? And if it does apply, perhaps the standard warning should be reworded (at least for cases of self-promotion) to avoid creating the impression that they should go experiment with self-promotion in their sandbox? (They may have intentionally misunderstood, but English didn't seem to be their first language, so they may have genuinely thought that this is what the warning suggested they do.) Joriki (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify me. Actually, I am not aware of the standard procedure for publishing a Wikipedia page. I uploaded it learning through YouTube videos.
The subject matter Mr. Viral Vasavada is a well known writer of Gujarat and possess huge fan following. I am one of them. So I tried to create this page. Please guide me, what to do now? Sameersheth (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Alteration to NOTDIRECTORY
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a rough consensus in favor of the alteration as proposed, with a rough consensus against the alternative proposals. While I recognize that BilledMammal's argument is a particularly strong one, I'm seeing that the argument on DAB pages being not articles as a simpler but more particularly strong one a bit more focused on the actual nature. More editors seem to believe and strongly argue that DAB pages should not be held to the same exact standard as articles, and that they need their own standards, hence the existence of all the relevant MOS pages regarding DABs. With regard to the alternative proposals, all of them seemed to attract their own consensus against them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
With the close of the previous discussion voided, the next step would be to see if there is explicit consensus to remove the sentence about DAB pages.
[Wikipedia articles are not:] Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.
Support as proposer. I think the previous discussion was clear about the remedy and that the mention of what to include on a disambiguation page belongs with the MOS, instead of specific guidance on the policy page. --Enos733 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Functionally, this appears identical to the previous RfC's on this topic (one, two). As such, I will quote my previous !vote on this topic, which still applies:
The current wording prevents the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of dab pages between non-notable individuals, such as Terry Pearce and Arthur Harley. These dab pages present a number of issues; first, only one link should be included per WP:DABSTYLE, but in many circumstances non-notable people, particularly sportspeople, are mentioned in multiple contexts, all of them equally valid as targets, and thus readers looking for a context different from the one we choose to link to will be left confused and in the wrong location.
Second, these dab pages are unmaintainable and unmaintained; with hundreds of thousands of them they will only rarely be updated after their initial creation, and thus readers looking for a mention of a different Arthur Harley after the dab page is created will struggle to find the mention, as rather than being taken to a list of search results that includes the article they are looking for they will be taken to a dab page that doesn't.
Third, we often don't have enough information to determine whether mentions are of the same people or of different, but using a dab page requires us to make a statement on this and thus has WP:V and WP:OR issues. For example, at Terry Pearce it is not unlikely that the Australian futsal coach and the Australian masters athlete are the same person, but we make the statement that they are different people without any evidence to support this.
These problems are all avoided by maintaining the status quo and instead directing readers to use the search function; it provides a better result for the reader, and it creates far less work for editors.
}}
For evidence that they are unmaintainable and unmaintained, during the second RfC I checked five random pages consisting solely of WP:DABMENTION links:
Support. With respect, I think the comments from BilledMammal are thoroughly confused and misleading. It appears they are objecting to the lack of some extremely unnotably individuals from the mentioned dab pages. Or even that some individuals that are unambiguous partial title matches are not included (and to be clear they should not be). How is this a problem? If BilledMammal feels something is missing from these pages, they are welcome to update them. But unless someone feels there a need to disambiguate these relatively unknowns, what is the problem? As for persons mentioned in various articles, for example the singer listed on Arthur Woodley -- it is very likely the same person mentioned in the several articles -- and unless one particular article has some further detail than the others, there is really no reason to list more than one. In the event an article is ever written for the person, the entry would need to be updated in any case. So what is the actual problem? older ≠ wiser17:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that search is more useful for the reader than these unmaintained dab pages, and having these dab pages makes it much harder for the reader to use the search function for these names.
For example, you say the singer listed on Arthur Woodley is likely the same person mentioned in several of the articles. I agree that is likely (although see the third issue I raised for the problems with this[a]), but this leads to the first issue I raised.[b]
It appears they are objecting to the lack of some extremely unnotably individuals from the mentioned dab pages. You misunderstand. I'm demonstrating that these pages are unmaintainable. It is true that I can update these five, but I can't update all of them, and the fact that none of the randomly selected pages I checked have been maintained demonstrates that we collectively cannot either. As for the issue with only including a subset of "extremely unnotably individuals" on these pages, see my second point.[c]BilledMammal (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If you are pointing out that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, that is just the way it is. Disambiguation pages will never be perfect, but I think they are vastly superior to throwing inexperienced readers to the vagaries of the general search function. While the search function is vastly improved since the early days, it can still be very confusing to find a particular sense. I think a curated disambiguation page, even if incomplete or imperfect is far more helpful for most readers. And many dab pages will also include links to additional tools such {{in title}}, {{look from}}, {{srt}}, or {{Canned search}}. To say these dab pages are unmaintainable is much the same as saying that Wikipedia itself is unmaintainable. You say in many circumstances non-notable people, particularly sportspeople, are mentioned in multiple contexts, all of them equally valid as targets -- that is really not applicable. I most cases such persons are merely mentioned in passing in the article. There is no reason to prefer any one over the others; it is editorial discretion which article to link to. Essentially, the dab is confirming there is no article at present, but there is 'something' available that might be relevant. And while MOS:DAB does say to only include one link, this is a point where the 'rule' is sometimes ignored, especially in cases where an individual might have been mentioned in articles for widely disparate activities, such as perhaps a former athlete is also an elected official. Regarding your point about someone looking for a different Arthur Harley -- response is as with the first -- disambiguation pages, as with the rest of Wikipedia is a work in progress and will never ever be perfectly complete. If you find something is missing from a dab page, then fix it. If what is missing is a completely unnotable passing mention in some article or another, then who the heck really cares if the entry is missing from the disambiguation? older ≠ wiser18:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Would adding something to DAB guidelines that all DABs or at least dabs that are only DABMENTION entries, must include some combination of {{in title}}, {{ook from}}, {{srt}}, or {{Canned search}}, and other templates (maybe a new template or inclusion in the {{Disambiguation}} template itself) resolve this concern about search sometimes being preferable? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions18:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages will never be perfect, but I think they are vastly superior to throwing inexperienced readers to the vagaries of the general search function. That depends. Dab pages that are curated are, while dab pages that are merely manually collected search results are not.
For example, John Smith is helpful, because it is limited to just the notable John Smiths; it is curated. Readers looking for the John Smith who was president of Union College will be greatly aided by that.
Adam Boyle is not useful because it is nothing more than manually collected search results - and worse, incomplete manually collected search results, meaning that someone who is searching for a different Adam Boyle who worked on Transformers (2004 video game) will struggle to find them. For Adam Boyle, search results are far more useful. BilledMammal (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree that not having the Adam Boyle disambiguation page is more helpful. If someone is looking for some other Adam Boyle and does find something relevant, they should be encouraged to add that to the disambiguation page. Search within text is always available as an option in the search function (and can be added to disambiguation pages with {{canned search}}). John Smith is an extreme example. Most human name disambiguation pages cover a range of persons, both those with standalone articles and those mentioned in another article. In any case, whether a person has a standalone article is often somewhat arbitrary. Is John Smith (Kent MPP) (who has an article and is thus included in the dab) significantly more notable than John Smith (Manchester politician) who does not and is not? older ≠ wiser21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
DAB pages are rarely "curated" in any meaningful way. It is usually people who come to add a link to something they've just worked on and maybe doing some odd maintenance as well. This is regardless of if it is a DABMENTION-only DAB page. Would your concerns be alleviated if helpful search templates had to be included on all DABMENTION-only DAB pages (or maybe even all DAB pages)? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions21:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Support WP:NOT covers mainspace articles. Dab pages are not mainspace articles. Ergo, the advice is misplaced. --Masem (t) 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Still the spirit here is that the purpose of DAB pages is far different from the purposes of lists in mainspace, and trying to conflate the advice for DAB pages here confuses things. I agree guidance is necessary for DAB pages but let MOS:DAB cover that (Which can link back to WP:NOT as why we don't include every possible John Smith on that DAB page). Masem (t) 19:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:NOT covers all pages, not just mainspace articles. Work that is not directly related to improvement of the encyclopedia should not be included at all. This is why we have a user page policy and a talk page policy. As for disambiguation pages, yes, we should only be covering WP:NOTABLE topics. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is fine as it is, we are not a dictionary either and we should not be providing every possible definition for every possible term. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:MOSDAB describe the purpose of a disambiguation page and the format of a disambiguation page. The guidance of what should or should not be included on a disambiguation page is found in MOS:DABNOENTRY and WP:DABNOT. Support of this proposal should not be seen as affecting a change to those guidelines. - Enos733 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, guidelines describe applications of policies within specific context. Here, WP:DABNOT clarifies what can and cannot be included on a disambiguation page to satisfy WP:NOTDIRECTORY. In this case, I would say it is redundant, but I would clarify this to make it less redundant. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that disambiguation pages should include every possible mention of any person with a name. What is at issue is there are some editors who would prefer to delete disambiguation pages that list only what they deem as being unnotable entries and use the line being proposed for removal here as justification for such deletions. The guideline at WP:DABMENTION is If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. Some incorrectly interpret the line in WP:NOTDIRECTORY as meaning that if a subject does not have an article of its own, it should not be included in a disambiguation page -- and by extension, others suggest that disambiguation pages that consist only of entries that do not have their own articles should be deleted. There is no suggestion that disambiguation pages must include every mention of a subject regardless of how fleeting the mention in an article -- only that entries are allowed for subjects that might not have a stand-alone article. older ≠ wiser18:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Support. Details of how DAB pages should be left to the DAB guideline and MOS. The guidance it gives is also wrong, at least in the commonly-used definition of "notable" to mean "has an article", and explaining the nuances of that distinction is not what NOT should be used for. If there are disagreements about how DABs work, it should be discussed there, not via trying to keep vague pronouncements in NOT that do not reflect actual practice at all. DABMENTION is how DAB pages have worked since basically the first guidelines were approved by the community in 2005.[12] The addition of this disputed guidance in 2017 to NOT, initially in the context of DABs of people's names.[13][14] and the 2022 revision to have it apply to all DABs, [15][16] both of which were undiscussed, did not result in any significant shift to how DAB pages actually work. It is simply wrong to argue that reverting to the 2016 version would suddenly result in DAB chaos. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions18:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Strong support as it became clear from the previous discussion that the sentence in question is very confusing and out of place. This bullet point discusses "Simple listings" (from context, meaning yellow and white pages), which disambiguation pages are not. The guidance should be left to the disambiguation guidelines & MOS. --Tavix(talk)19:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It's the third time that "just the notable ones", which is the important part of the sentence, has been suggested for removal in the last eight months. If the next RFC is to only remove the second half of the sentence it will still be the same question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the first RfC that actually addresses the root of the problem—that disambiguation guidance does not belong in a clause about white pages. Only removing "just the notable ones" still maintains out of place disambiguation guidance. --Tavix(talk)19:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I would add that the current wording does reflect practice, non-notable entries are removed from disambiguation pages. This change wants to change that practice, as did the previous RFCs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This is not true in the context of notable topics, and especially not true if we're using notability to mean "should have a standalone article", which is how most people use it. To use an example from a page you've edited a lot, Sound Man is the name of Glyn Johns's autobiography, and I just added it to the Sound man disambiguation page, since it meets the criteria at MOS:DABMENTION because it is discussed in a way that provides value to readers. I think this is helpful, since people who search "Sound Man" should be able to see that this is the title of Johns's autobiography.
I haven't actually researched how much the book was covered, but let's assume that it did not receive enough in-depth coverage by RSs to meet WP:GNG. Then it wouldn't be a notable topic and under the current version of NOTDIRECTORY, it should be removed from the page. However, even if it did receive enough RS coverage to pass GNG, per WP:NOPAGE, we can still make the editorial decision that it's better to just cover the book on Johns's page instead of having a standalone article. Then, if we're using "notable" in the more popular sense, it would also be removed under the current guidance.
DABMENTION has existed in some form since MOS:DAB was first approved back in 2005.[17] This guidance was initially added without discussion in 2017 in the context of DAB pages of people's names should not resemble phone books (i.e. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES).[18][19] Then in 2022, it was moved, again without discussion, to another bullet point in NOTDIRECTORY to become a rule that applied to all DABs.[20][21]. This guidance is out of line with actual practice, not the other way around. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The factual matrix here depends on clear hypotheticals and is not particularly complicated or technical. If the Glyn Johns autobiography does not meet WP:GNG do you think it should be removed from the DAB page? NOTDIRECTORY as currently worded would bar its inclusion.
One of the issues is that last year, this sentence was moved from a bullet point specifically about how Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages for names to a bullet point of general application. Even if we removed this, "Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated." would remain in the policy and MOS:DABMENTION would prohibit the addition of people with no encyclopedic relevance. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Strong support for the reasons explained by myself and others the previous times this has been suggested (formally and informally). In short this will allow dab pages to be created and maintained based on what best serves the reader in each case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Support, duh. This is not the place to codify disambiguation guidelines, and definitely not where they should be changed. It's misplaced in another manner too: disambiguation pages that list non-notable persons always include contextual information showing encyclopaedic merit. J947 † edits01:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Support this removal of guidance per WP:POLCON because it is in conflict with other DAB guidance, but disagree with the idea that was brought up in past discussions that links to essays or MOS should not be in policy. Huggums537 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the current wording is simple, easy to find, and easy to understand. Wikipedia has lots of new user accounts, and it is useful to be able to point them at simple guidance that there is a chance that they will read and understand. It is not helpful to claim that somewhere over the rainbow there is better more detailed guidance. People need to be able to find that guidance, and there needs to some kind of short summary of it in various accessible places that we can point new user accounts at when they start adding non-notable people/organisations to lists. -- Toddy1(talk)08:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
re (2) - that is exactly what this discussion is about: an amendment to the current wording has been proposed to resolve a problem with it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per my rationale above. We need a clear-cut guideline here for lists in order to prevent them from turning into arbitrary directories; that is, clearly, part of the point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as can be seen in the guidelines it sets for all our other parts of the wiki that might similarly turn into directories. There's no particular reason why disambiguation pages would be different in that regard, so the argument people are making that it is out-of-place here makes no sense. And ultimately, notability is a reasonable established standard to use as a rough guideline for when we include or exclude things in a disambiguation list; there's no real evidence that it has led to confusion or problems, aside from the subjective "people are using it to argue for the deletion of things that I would rather we not delete" arguments above. And those arguments seem to be essentially pushing for us to allow disambiguation pages to be used as directories, which is specifically what the entry in NOTDIRECTORY is meant to prevent - their purpose is not to be a directory but to disambiguate between potential articles that the title could plausibly refer to, which plainly requires some degree of notability. It also makes no sense to argue that this should be deleted because of conflict with other policies; this page is more established, policy-wise, and the sentence here is longer-standing, so if there is a conflict it ought to hold priority, especially since its guidance is simple, straightforward, and generally the most useful way to ensure that disambiguation pages serve the purpose they're intended to serve rather than turning into directories or dumping grounds for indiscriminate information. --Aquillion (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Procedural Support per my comments at AN, I think the discussion has showed there is not consensus for any specific policy regarding what is to be listed on disambiguation pages, and we should not leave the wrong policy ensconced because of a lack of consensus for a specific replacement. As far as a specific change: I would prefer to leave Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith in the text, and only remove the phrase just the notable ones. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Support complete removal, because the section is explicitly about articles only, and disambiguation pages are not articles. Second choice, as a compromise, is to remove just the final part as I suggested below. Certes (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Procedural Oppose there was no consensus to remove this last time. I don't think we should have exhaustive directory-style databases of names anywhere on Wikipedia, but the phrasing should be discussed based on what would help the encyclopedia. Trying to split hairs between what is or isn't an article would void the spirit of the policy and feels like a WP:BUREAUCRATIC procedure to achieve what couldn't be done via WP:CONSENSUS in the last RFC. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
support with note I'd rather have what Walt Yoder is suggesting, but if that isn't on the table, I'd prefer to remove the whole thing. "Notable" is a term-of-art here but I think the intent (and goal) should be just to list those topics that we could reasonably expect people to be searching for, rather than just those that meet the GNG. The GNG is too high of a bar, IMO, for inclusion in a dab page. Hobit (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Support per Patar knight. The long-standing 2005 wording was not really problematic and reflected editors' practice. The undiscussed addition just added unnecessary confusion and ambiguity. --Cavarrone07:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Disambig pages are to disambig to navigate to articles, not to be lists of everything/everybody with that name. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding of what is at issue here. NO ONE is proposing that disambiguation pages should be a comprehensive listing of anyone and everyone with a name. Disambiguation pages have ALWAYS included entries for subjects that do not have standalone articles. What is at issue here is that some editors are using this line in WP:NOT that had been added without consensus to justify removal of entries from disambiguation pages that do not have stand-alone articles -- or in some cases to delete the disambiguation pages entirely. older ≠ wiser15:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, at issue is if the bar for inclusion on a dab page is "meets GNG", the same as the bar for having an article. That bar seems too high to me. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Specific_instances does a fairly good job setting what I think is a reasonable bar ("Do not include entries for topics which are not mentioned in any article, even if there is an article on a related topic, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic.") Hobit (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Support or oppose - the line isn't wrong, but apparently some interpretations of it are wrong. What's important is for whoever closes this to be clear that if you're interpreting this sentence in a way that conflicts with WP:DAB, you're interpreting it wrong. If it's somehow too confusing, it should be removed, but meh. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The line is a brief and necessarily imprecise summary of a long, nuanced and carefully written guideline. It's a useful introduction to the subject but should never have found its way onto a policy page where it technically overrides the main guideline page. Certes (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
SupportWP:NOT should stick to a broad statement about what Wikipedia isn't, rather getting into the weeds about the details of what we do in well-established types of pages such as disambiguation and lists. Best practice for such pages should be covered in the specific, positive guidance for them such as WP:DAB and WP:LIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose This clearly provides guidance on what is and what is not okay on a disambiguation page by interpreting WP:DAB, and prevents disambiguation pages from turning into directories of non-notable things. (I support those who are de-cluttering these pages, and I would support a re-write to better match WP:DAB, but not full removal.) SportingFlyerT·C10:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I actually like this quite a bit. I think "discussed" is a smidge too broad, and the proposal below is perhaps a bit too narrow. But yes, that's really close. Hobit (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Support, the current guideline is confusing as it conflicts with MOS:DAB, specifically MOS:DABMENTION. We shouldn't keep policy that doesn't reflect the way editors actually do things. The alternate proposal or something similar is probably the best option. —siroχo10:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The disambiguation pages are for disambiguation of topics that are notable. They are not an alternative to a search engine. And it is pretty evident they cannot reasonably be used as an alternative to a search engine and it would be foolish to even try to make them do that. WP:DABMENTION does not conflict with what is here as topics that do not have their own article may still be notable - especialy ones where there is a likely advantage to users in putting them in a DAB page. They should not be in a DAB page if they are obviously not notable. NadVolum (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Changed my mind to just underneath.
Support Disambiguation pages should not be under this policy. They are 'simple lists' which are quite rightly forbidden as articles. WP:DAB should be what describes them. NadVolum (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Support with the understanding that this means the policy says nothing about dab pages and does not contain a secret, unwritten meaning that overrides WP:DABMENTION's restrictions. I'd also be satisfied with a "See MOS:DAB for other rules" kind of line. I want editors following the best practices that are already documented on the other pages. I prefer removing this rule (whether it's replaced with a link to the more detailed guidelines) because it is unnecessary for this page to add its own rule, and it bad for the pages to be perceived (by anyone, even just a few highly active editors) as being in conflict. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Support the wording mentioned here (i.e., to not delete outright but replace with a line directing people to WP:DABNOT). I think this is the best way to ensure that guidance is consistent across the various pages, rather than trying to rewrite and running the risk of introducing new inconsistencies, while still directing people to whatever the single source of truth is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Support The mention of dab pages here confuses the issue. Dab pages are not "Wikipedia articles", they are part of the infrastructure which underlies the articles and helps readers to find them. PamD15:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Support. I would have rather replaced the sentence with a clarification that the rule applies only to articles, not other mainspace pages. Just deleting the confusing line about dab pages is a poor alternative, but better than the status quo, which clearly creates confusion and argument. --Srleffler (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Support. Out of principle, it's better for pages to avoid either being in conflict, or appearing to be in conflict, and it's better for specific issues (here, how to write DAB pages) to be addressed in one specific place. Overlapping P&Gs create needless complexity. DFlhb (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Support. There's some kernel of truth in this sentence (DAB pages shouldn't be indiscriminate databases), but invoking notability conflicts with longstanding practice and leads to suboptimal outcomes for readers in some cases. In an ideal world I'd support a rewrite, but the perfect is the enemy of the good, as the last few months of discussions show. (As an aside, letting a poorly thought-out BOLD addition made without apparent consensus overrule guidelines, AfDs, etc. just because no one noticed it back in 2014 troubles me. While everything here was above board procedurally, policy-making by adverse possession is just not a good idea.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
What if the language was changed from Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. to something like For example, lists of persons, including standalone lists, embedded lists, and disambiguation pages, are not intended to be complete listings of every person associated with that topic - just the notable ones. --Masem (t) 17:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
That still has the problematic "just the notable ones" language, made even worse by applying it to all lists of people. I'd support it if that part were removed, the guidance still holds without bringing notability into it. --Tavix(talk)21:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I suggest Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. This isn't the right page to specify the exact criteria for inclusion, but I think we have consensus that the threshold is lower than WP:notable, i.e. warrants its own article, as linked in the current version. Certes (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:N does not say that every notable topic warrants its own article. "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." NadVolum (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Technically true, in that notable topics are still notable without standalone articles, but how most people use notability on Wikipedia is for if an article should exist or not. The first sentence of the guideline is literally: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Neither the guidance here nor in the proposals clarify which notability definition is being used. Regardless, they impose a stricter bar than the DAB guideline (WP:DABRELATED) and the DAB manual of style (MOS:DABMENTION). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
We don't need a duplicate of WP:N just for disambiguation pages just because people won't actually read the policy and notice the lead or the section on 'Whether to create standalone pages'. NadVolum (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
It's worse than a duplicate – it's a variant which, being on a policy page, risks overriding the more established guideline. Certes (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Anyway I've now changed my !vote for the original proposal - I now support removing all mention of disambiguation pages here. They should not be considered as articles even though they are in article space. NadVolum (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
"Just the notable ones" is problematic since it doesn't match actual DAB practice. It also goes against the guidance at WP:CSC for lists, which explicitly allows non-notable entries in some cases. Removing the phrase would still convey that DAB entries should show encyclopedic merit. If we do want to include something more detailed, we could point people to the relevant pages - like we already do for lists - by changing everything after the opening sentence to something like "Stand-alone list articles should have clear selection criteria. For example, List of Harvard University alumni is limited to those notable enough to have their own articles. Similarly, disambiguation page entries should only be added according to the manual of style".---- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, and more importantly, it would be good to write this as "Editors working on List of Harvard University alumni chose by consensus to limit it to blue links only" (the LSC for that list is actually blue links ["having an article"] rather than notability ["qualifying for an article"]) so that nobody thinks that WP:NOT is declaring that this is the correct answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Patar knight; that's a huge improvement. Let's point editors at the established criteria for both lists and dabs, rather than attempting either to alter them or to reduce them to abrupt summaries. Certes (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I oppose this suggestion per Tavix, it retains the problematic portions of the present wording while expanding the scope to be more problematic. Disambiguation pages and list articles are different things, serving different purposes, and different inclusion criteria apply. We should be reducing, not increasing (as this proposal would do), the confusion between them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Support and comment This is an improved phrasing overall because it strengthens our directory policy across the entire encyclopedia. It's possible that "just the notable ones" is overly prescriptive. If we can form a consensus on everything else, then it's fair to remove that detail in the interest of consensus-building and compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose because this is just essentially the same problematic sentence reworded in a different way presenting the same conflict with DAB guidance that was present before. Huggums537 (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I get what you're trying to do, but I think the problem in the original is "notable" and this has the same problem. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as it lumps disambiguation pages, which have a purely navigational function, with lists whether standalone or embedded, which are intended to be informational in themselves. PamD15:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Some lists absolutely are intended to be complete, and I am unconvinced that e.g. List of winners of the Boston Marathon would be improved by removing the two redlinked runners from the list of men's open division winners. Of course some lists are sufficiently broad or their inclusion criteria are sufficiently ambiguous that we should be strict about only including notable examples (e.g. list of poets from the United States would not be improved by adding anyone who might ever have been a poet from the US, regardless of notability) but where a list is of a reasonably small and unambiguous set we should often list every constitutent. Making this change would lead to what seems to me the absurd situation where for instance the inclusion rules for Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor would have to change but Hugo Award for Best Short Story could stay the same, leading to what was previously a single set of lists having two different rules for inclusion based on whether the award went to the person or to the work. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The list selection criteria guideline says that some lists should be complete and that non-notable entries are allowed in some cases. This proposal would make it impossible to merge some biography stubs into lists, and we need to be able to do such mergers. James500 (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Caeciliusinhorto -- this wording seems to have rather sweeping ramifications for all lists, not just disambig pages, that I assume were unintended. Either way, they certainly are out of scope of the proposal. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Alternative proposal
Based on J947's previous proposal, I propose changing the line to:
[Wikipedia articles are not:] Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith — just the ones who are notable or well-discussed on Wikipedia.
Survey regarding alternative proposal to "Alteration to NOTDIRECTORY"
Support. Above, I've expressed why I believe removing all restrictions is a bad idea, but I believe this is a reasonable compromise. "Well-discussed" will exclude entries in lists like Arthur Harley (gymnast), while permitting individuals who have more extensive coverage but fall short of notable to still be listed. Further, it will address concerns that some editors have about "notable" limiting the inclusion to individuals who have standalone articles; while this concern is incorrect, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, addressing it is a positive.
Finally, this proposal is modified from J947's to continue to permit the inclusion of notable individuals; if someone is notable but not yet "well-discussed" on Wikipedia we should still be able to include a link to them, per WP:WIP. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose because the section is explicitly and exclusively about articles. Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not be discussed there. Adding the sentence was an unnoticed technical error which we should now rectify. MOS:DAB and associated guidelines have been crafted carefully over many years, and it is wrong to override them with a glib one-line summary in a policy page about a different topic. Improvements to the guideline should be made at MOS:DAB, preferably after discussion on its talk page. I have notified WT:MOSDAB. Certes (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Even if the proposal to completely remove doesn't pass, there's probably going to be a consensus that the current text is inadequate. There never was any consensus to add this phrase in the first place, so it would make sense for it not to be set as 'completely inalterable except for an affirmative consensus'. Among the opposers who disagree with this alternative proposal there are few who don't regard it as an improvement over the current text. J947 † edits02:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Support as close 2nd choice My big issues is that well-discussed is poorly defined. But as long as, say, a paragraph or two of coverage counts as "well discussed" I'm fine with this. I do think the part about WP:WIP isn't at all clear from the wording, but I guess we can always point back to this proposal as needed. I think this is a good compromise. And while I prefer the original proposal above (because "well-discussed" is poorly defined and that could lead to some problems), I think this notionally is closer to where I think we should be. I'm not sure I buy objections about DAB pages being discussed in WP:NOT as this policy isn't just for articles... Hobit (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Neither 'notable" or "well-discussed" is in line with longstanding practice at MOS:DABMENTION. There are many cases where something may not be well-discussed within an article, but would still be useful and valuable to readers to have on a DAB page. For example, if a book's author is only briefly mentioned in an article on the book or if a topic could be discussed in detail but editors haven't gotten around to it yet. Also, if this does go through, we would need to change "articles" at the top paragraph of the section to "pages". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per the fact that the conflict with the DAB guidance is still there. Complete removal is the best option. Go fix the DAB guidance if you disagree with it. Stop mucking up policy by creating conflicts. Also, this section of policy is intended to be about simple lists, but DAB pages function more like navigational aids, and can get quite extensively long at times even with notable entries. So, having a "notability" criteria for keeping lists or DAB pages "simple" is really a stupid and senseless excuse for notability fanatics forcing notability criteria onto article or list content in violation of WP:NNC. Huggums537 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Updated on 15:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: I would accept something like "just those on whom Wikipedia has information". The criterion for inclusion in a dab page should be no more demanding than the criterion for having a redirect from their name: if there is one name-holder, they have a redirect, while if there are more than one, they have dab page entries. Leaving a reader to find what they want by searching is not helpful - especially as on some versions of mobile interface the reader cannot choose to search on a term if there is already a "hit" for that term but is forced to the one article which matches. PamD15:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
OpposeWP:NOT should stick to a broad statement about what Wikipedia isn't, rather getting into the weeds about the details of what we do in well-established types of pages such as disambiguation and lists. Best practice for such pages should be covered in the specific, positive guidance for them such as WP:DAB and WP:LIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Not an improvement. Say less about dab pages here, not more. This rule should not apply to dab pages (which are not articles) at all.--Srleffler (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment What about removing mentions of "Disambiguation pages" altogether, since I think that's the main point of contention? What about: A page titled List of people with surname Smith, for example, is not intended to be a complete listing of every person with the surname Smith.Some1 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
My alternative if the original discussion does not gain consensus. What I intend to do here is copy some of the wording from WP:DAB into WP:NOT and turn the disambguation section into a footnote:
Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages may not be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information. (Footnote: Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) ensure that that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. MOS:DABMENTION applies: any red-linked entry must still have a blue link to an article that covers the redlinked topic.)
I would oppose that as well. The point is that this policy about the content of articles should be completely silent regarding disambiguation pages because they are (a) not articles and (b) already have their own policy on inclusion (WP:DAB). Copying text from one to the other brings no benefits over a link but does risk the two getting out-of-sync. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Thryduulf, I don't think it's fair to say that NOT restricts itself to "the content of articles". The entire Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Community half of the policy is about non-content issues, and dab pages do contain content. That said, I agree with you about silence about dab pages being a reasonable, appropriate and practical option for this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I see value in your proposal Patar knight. I do agree with North8000's comment that our community should first determine 'Whether or not to have anything here in that paragraph regarding DAB pages." My first preference is no (and not because I want to see more redlinked entries), but because I am of the belief that the disambiguation sentence should be best described at WP:DAB or MOS:DAB rather than squished between "simple listings" and "white or yellow pages." Disambiguation are very distinct from those other types of directories. - Enos733 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages may not be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information. (Footnote: While disambiguation pages are outwardly similar to lists, they are navigational aids, not articles. Entries should follow the inclusion rules at the guideline and associated manual of style.)
User:Thryduulf Is correct that this line has been mixing two different things. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is clearly article guidance shown by it starts "Wikipedia articles are not:", and MOS:DAB is clear that DABs "are non-article pages designed to help a reader find the right Wikipedia article when different topics could be referred to by the same search term". It would be going the wrong way to copy any material from WP:DAB into WP:NOT, and good to include afootnote that distinguishes simple lists from DABs and leads DAB usage to a DAB-specific guideline. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that this is headed towards dying under it's own weight. I think that one underlying issue is that it is dealing with two questions simultaneously: #1. Whether or not to have anything here in that paragraph regarding DAB pages. and #2. If so, what wording?. Another issue is that this has gotten so gigantic and the wording (and lack of explicitness and explanation) for each new proposal requires someone to read both gigantic RFC's in order to participate which I think will substantially limit participation. A methodical approach which eventually leads to a resolution is still faster than "never" which will happen if this dies under it's own weight. May I suggest dealing with question #1 separately and then, if the answer is "yes", then question #2? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Your question 1 is in effect the same as the single question asked by the main proposal, it is only the "suggestion" and "alternative proposal" that are muddying the waters. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
IMO there are two ways to read the main proposal/ the main proposal has been read. 1. Remove it and then who knows what is next.....possibly another version, leading the discussions which have occurred. 2. An explicit decision to have nothing about DAB's in that paragraph. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
My reading of all this seems to be based on the fact we are wanting to cover both article based lists and disamb pages in the same breath, and while the ideas of how we limit both apply with a high degree of overlap, there is just enough difference that they aren't treated perfectly the same. A way to simplify that is through footnotes. A main statement could be "Lists of people (such as those named John Smith) should not include every John Smith, but only those that meet appropriate sourcing guidelines.<efn>" with the efn stating "for lists within articles including standalone lists, see inclusion sourcing guidance at LISTN. For disambiguation oages see MOS:DAB" --Masem (t) 22:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment Let's all remember that MOS pages are neither policy nor guidelines, and anything in them used as if it were such has no more normative power than an essay. MOS pages describe how information is to be presented, not what information is to be presented. And if you want another comment? Since NOT is policy, it should not rephrase, paraphrase, or incorporate any guideline or essay, including any aspect of N. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Notes
^we often don't have enough information to determine whether mentions are of the same people or of different, but using a dab page requires us to make a statement on this and thus has WP:V and WP:OR issues. For example, at Terry Pearce it is not unlikely that the Australian futsal coach and the Australian masters athlete are the same person, but we make the statement that they are different people without any evidence to support this.
^only one link should be included per WP:DABSTYLE, but in many circumstances non-notable people, particularly sportspeople, are mentioned in multiple contexts, all of them equally valid as targets, and thus readers looking for a context different from the one we choose to link to will be left confused and in the wrong location.
^readers looking for a mention of a different Arthur Harley after the dab page is created will struggle to find the mention, as rather than being taken to a list of search results that includes the article they are looking for they will be taken to a dab page that doesn't.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarification on NOTFILESTORAGE
So WP:FFD is a bit unclear about this policy. Sometimes a personal image used on a user page on the English Wikipedia is deleted, citing WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. Other times it is moved to Commons, citing COM:INUSE ("The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project"). The clash in policy between Enwiki and Commons has created inconsistency, where some images are deleted, and some are moved to Commons (depending on how discussion participants and the closing admin interpret policy). —Matr1x-101(Ping me when replying) {user page(@ commons) - talk}16:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think is is a good RFC, at least at this point, because it's not asking a clear question as a result of prior discussion (WP:RFCBEFORE). If what you say is true (and I've not yet investigated) then this is something we should discuss, and that discussion may lead to an RFC, but not yet. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Iruka13 cited NOTFILESTORAGE in two recent NOTFILESTORAGE noms. Perhaps they could explain why deletion is the right answer (e.g., and not moving the files to Commons) and why uploading exactly two images for an article they're editing feels like someone using Wikipedia for file storage (e.g., instead of Google Photos or Flickr or buying a bigger hard drive) and does not feel like "Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles" (=the first sentence of NOTFILESTORAGE). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
To describe these images in my own words, I see on one of them garbage-like picture frames with the company logo on them, and on the second - a mediocre logo patch. The use of such images to illustrate a company logo is undesirable. For what else these images can be useful, I do not see. For a better understanding of my point, please read the section "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" on Commons. In addition, the uploader himself refused to use these images three years ago, as evidenced by the date the {{orphan image}} was installed. — Ирука1318:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Was that actually a case of "refused to use" (e.g., "the child refused to eat vegetables and threw them on the floor"), or might it be more fairly described as "did not happen to use in the two (2) mainspace edits they made during the bot's seven-day window"?
I'm familiar with Commons' rules, and I think Commons would accept them. They can be useful to illustrate the article even if they are not useful to illustrate the company logo. After all, articles may contain images that are not company logos. (I also notice that you were indeffed at Commons; your block log says something about Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, which makes me think that you are perhaps not familiar with Commons' rules.)
But my question for you is not whether the English Wikipedia should be hosting these. My question for you is why you think this editor used Wikipedia as a free File storage system. The FFD nominate could be perfectly valid, but why did you list this particular reason, instead of a more obvious one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTFILESTORAGE ≠ using Wikipedia as a file storage.
What is an obvious reason for you is not so for others. So that we do not guess what this obvious reason is, please voice it.— Ирука1321:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The entire text of NOTFILESTORAGE is:
File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
Let's evaluate it line by line:
We are not a File hosting service – do you allege that this is an instance of that behavior? It sounds like you don't, but please tell me if I'm wrong.
We want only files that could be used in encyclopedia articles – For the first, do you allege that it is impossible or unreasonable to put a photo of a cancelled ticket for a notable attraction into an encyclopedia article about that attraction, or into Ticket (admission)? Old tickets are shown in other articles, e.g., FastPass and Six Flags AstroWorld#Hofheinz family. For the second photo, do you allege that it is impossible or unreasonable to put a photo of a shoulder patch, or any type of Embroidered patch, into an article? I assume not, since exactly those things are shown in those articles.
Consequently, I think the obvious thing to do in the list given at WP:FFD is "If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons". But the reason I pinged you is: Why, of all the possible policy-based or common-sense-based reasons, did you think that "Wikipedia is not a file storage area" was the best explanation for your nomination? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I did not fully study the history of the files and put them up for deletion. You found a use for them (the question of whether the article with this patch has become better is a separate one) and reported this to the FfD. All this dialogue here, I don't see the point in it. — Ирука1304:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of this discussion is to find out whether people who cite NOTFILESTORAGE in FFD discussions understand what the policy says. You were the only person citing it on the recent (randomly chosen) day that I checked, so I asked you. It sounds like your understanding does not match the intention of the policy, so there probably is a problem with the way the policy is written. Policies should not be confusing; this one is; now we should figure out how to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand how NOTFILESTORAGE/OUTOFSCOPE works. Administrators who delete the files marked by me do not understand. Participants who actively support my nominations do not understand. Participants who passively support my nominations do not understand. You, as a person with six thousand edits on Commons, one hundred thousand on Wikipedia and zero on the NFC, can you share your experience? What files did you delete for this reason. — Ирука1302:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
My interest is in writing policies and guidelines that accurately reflect the community's actual practices. It appears that this one does not match the way that you are using it. From the comments at the top of this section, the written policy also does not match the way that some other editors are using it. This suggests that we have a problem. A different section of this policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which says "the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected", implies that the way to fix the discrepancy is to change the written policy.
The reasons you've given for these particular images are:
One shows "garbage-like picture frames".
Another shows "a mediocre logo".
Both are "undesirable" for the specific purpose of illustrating a company logo.
You personally can't see how the image images can be "useful".
None of this has anything to do with file storage, but perhaps the general theme is WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
Most of that seems to boil down to image-quality concerns, which are subjective and often enough hotly debated on article talk pages, but yeah they don't seem to strongly relate to NOTFILESTORAGE, unless maybe if there was a clear consensus that the images were unsuitable, then there would be no rationale for WP continuing to host copies of them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Most of the images on that page are on Commons. Images uploaded to Commons are never violations of the English Wikipedia's policies about uploading images here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
These are obviously high-quality, clear photographs that illustrate their subjects distinctly. They are clearly within scope for Commons, and are of encyclopedic interest due to being clearly illustrative; the claim that these need to be deleted is bizarre to say the least. jp×g03:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Photos of buildings in major cities are obviously useful in articles.
It looks like all of these are from a country with uncertain freedom of panorama rules, so it's possible that there would be a copyright problem, but at a quick glance, I see nothing that is impossible to use in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Concerns on recent wordsmithing attempts
@Hydronium Hydroxide: I am a bit concerned about your edits which I do believe were trying to wordsmith and improve the language, but by flipping orders, taking out sentences altogether, and other factors, changes the intent of this policy. I would not make such major changes without checking for consensus. Masem (t) 02:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I second this. Your unilateral changes to WP:NOTDIRECTORY in 2022 [22][23] was a major contributing factor to an issue that led to multiple long RFCs as noted here before being resolved in the above discussion. Even if the intent is to just do some basic revisions which individually may not be harmful, doing a bunch of them at once can lead to unintended consequences and is worth at least discussing on the talk page just in case. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Saying original research is not allowed does nothing to clarify what is meant by original. All research originates somewhere.
Does it mean research that is published? Published by whom?
In the case of topics surrounding scientific research I assume then that if Wikipedia was around when Newton discovered gravity, and he went on his computer to put his discovery on wikipedia, this constitutes “original research”? Blimp777 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
More precisely, the term replies to research that is put onto Wikipedia without first being published through the appropriate channels. If a Wikipedia editor adds unpublished research by someone else to an article, that is still original research. If someone who happens to be a Wikipedia editor publishes research in a reputable academic journal, and then adds it to an article, it may be a conflict of interest but it is not original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
"Original research" is a technical term on Wikipedia, defined at WP:NOR.
Yes, if Newton published his results about gravity on Wikipedia before publishing them elsewhere, that would be "original research" in our sense. Wikipedia is not a suitable place for the first publication of new results. --Macrakis (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Clarifying the crystal ball rule
On the article for Kmart, an edit I made was reverted using local news as a source for the closure of the NJ location. The reason for this reversion was the crystal ball rule, as the event is in the future so might not happen. The event is happening and the store will be closed by the end of October. Is this not soon enough that the news can be included in the article? poketape 07:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Probably not, since local news often gets things wrong (at a rate higher than that of major, national news), and there is no encyclopedic interest at all in when some particular Walmart is going to close, much less predictive announcement that one will close. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Poketape, I think that was a bad excuse. Store closures take weeks, so the process is already underway, and a local newspaper is extremely unlikely to get this wrong. The source has a photo of the store with multiple signs up saying "STORE CLOSING"; that's hardly a case of "speculation, rumors, or presumption". It's happening now, and it will finish in a few more weeks.
However, it might not have been a bad edit, because it's not clear to me why an article about a national chain should mention closing a single store. In ten years, I suspect that none of us will want a blow-by-blow description of which stores were closed in which months. I would not be surprised if that section were eventually shortened and simplified to something like "They sold 202 stores to ____ in early 2019. By the end of the year, 130 stores had been closed. In 2020, another 60 stores closed. In early 2024, only two stores remained open."
This policy is almost as old as the project, but it no longer reflects editing practice. It also causes vast amounts of drama at AfD. Consider the areas where some Wikipedians have zealously advocated for categorical inclusion, or "inherent notability":
Census designated places
Highways
Railway stations
Schools
Olympic athletes
We have had fights over whether categories can be included or deleted (e.g. SMALLCAT) where the limit on size is largely imposed by this policy. We have had people who have been banned multiple times with sometimes dozens of sockpuppets because they refuse to accept this policy (e.g. Sander.v.Ginkel). Few things are more guaranteed to cause an inclusionist / deletionist fight than an essentially unsourceable article about something that nevertheless is needed to make a directory complete. Of course this is partly because lists don't self-maintain, and summary text minor entries can't be included in categories without an article - and individuals have preferences for lists v. categories for sound reasons in both cases.
At the very least we need to acknowledge that Wikipedia is a directory of some things. We can argue until we're blue in the face about dropping sourcing standards to allow inclusion, but the entire drama seems unnecessary if we simply bow to the inevitable here. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Proposals re RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR
Modify to "Wikipedia is not generally a directory", and link to WP:GNG
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1 would make sense, but I would also advocate that also with that change, that we need to examine the behavior behind the reason that some of these are kept. Do we have walled gardens of editors in place that need to be dismantled? But as to the text here, we absolutely need to be clear than unless agreed to by the community at large (as we have generally done for populated, recognized geographic places), there is no such allowance for "inherited notability" for these types of lists or directories. --Masem (t) 18:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Guy, maybe I'm just having a hard time tracking the through line of your reasoning here. Because I also strongly agree that "inherited notability" is non-starter under our policies and procedures. What I don't understand is how redacting NOTDIR would improve that situation. All it would seem to do is clear one layer of obstacle for those looking to introduce the same content we agree is problematic. I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something here, but your proposal would seem to only further facilitate the same content we seem to agree should not be automatically greenlit. SnowRise let's rap03:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Proposal needs clarification The WP:NOTDIR policy has multiple clauses, and it's not clear which one is being addressed by this proposal. Is it saying that we should have pages consisting of "simple listings" of people who don't have individual articles? Is it saying that WP should function as an index to content on the Web, e.g., links to github for projects that don't pass our notability bar? etc. Maybe the proposer has been involved in particular NOTDIR disputes which motivate the proposal, but the rest of us don't know what in particular they have in mind. --Macrakis (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I advocate no change Yes, there is a problem there but #1 and #2 would make it worse. I echo @Masem:'s points including the walled garden concerns but their caveat would not get implemented leaving just #1 which would work counter to their sentiments. On the walled garden, to be a bit whimsical, the walled garden might be like some autopatrol editors making 200 articles on 200 stoplights in Chicago and when #201 gets reviewed and goes to AFD, the argument is that the 200 articles established that these belong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose / 'No change' in the strongest possible terms.(Summoned by bot) Bluntly, no part of this proposal or the argument for it makes any kind of sense to me within the framework of this project's pillar policies or most basic editorial processes. The mere fact that "some Wikipedians" have "zealously advocated for categorical inclusion, or 'inherent notability'" in no way makes such a proposal a good idea--which is why the community at large has consistently rejected such ideas.Untethering inclusion criteria from WP:WEIGHT and coverage in sources generally is utterly unfeasible, and attempts (knowing or incidental) to try to subvert these basic editorial principles (through SNGs drafted so aggressively that they neglected to adhere to the principle that all subjects must ultimately adhere to GNG for an article to survive deletion in the long run) have been so disastrous for the quality and neutrality of our content and caused such havoc in our processes, that the community has actually been consistently clawing them back in recent years. Why would we now TNT any kind of restraint on the basis of NPOV/DUE/Notability?Likewise, the mere fact that there is a lot of contention in AfD around a given issue pertaining to content does not in any way automatically indicate that there is something broken in a particular guideline that happens to interface with a particular kind of disputed content. AfD is always going to be an area of routine contention--it's just the nature of the beast when you are talking about a space where the work of contributors (and their notions of what is suitable topic matter for this encyclopedia) sometimes unfortunately need to be tossed out on their ear.The fact that NOTDIR is frequently cited in such disputes is as likely explained as it being properly applied (to the chagrin of certain editors who don't understand or don't agree with our community standards on inclusion as they apply to this or that topic), as any other explanation. It's not an a priori argument for why the principle itself is flawed: you'd need one hell of an argument to explain why that's so here in order to get support for this proposal, and I see no such argument other than "some people disagree it should exist", which is just a variety of argument from authority. Defending such a massive change because otherwise editors will get themselves banned for maintaining sock farms to argue against it is a particularly quizzical argument to me: that's a behavioural issue that can and should be handled through the correct fora and processes: we certainly shouldn't obviate central community priorities just to protect those editors from themselves (especially considering that someone willing to act in that fashion over one issue will almost certainly need to be dealt with for doing it on the next issue they want to be disruptive over. And with regard to "We can argue until we're blue in the face about dropping sourcing standards to allow inclusion...", why on earth would we ever do that? and as to "...but the entire drama seems unnecessary if we simply bow to the inevitable here." ...I mean, we could "bow to the inevitable" with regard to any number of types of content that the community has proscribed or put sourcing conditions on, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do so just because some small ratio of editors loudly advocates for it, or that it is inevitable that the larger community capitulate to that view even though the original underlying reasons for the standard remain as relevant today as they ever did. I'm sorry, but this whole proposal just turns the standard of proof of need for a change on it's head and we'd need a much more particularized explanation of need (and demonstration in the form of proof) to justify such a radical alteration to the existing standard--no personal offense intended to the OP. SnowRise let's rap20:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Could you point us to some specific examples on XfD? It really isn't clear to me what this proposal is supposed to be addressing. --Macrakis (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I have close to 15 years experience with various aspects of XfD, but honestly, I don't even follow what aspect of your argument you are trying to imply is augmented by an understanding of that space. But I do know we don't formulate policy based on the logic that "the disruptive parties among the minority won't stop until we give them what they want, so we might as well capitulate now." SnowRise let's rap03:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Possible Alternative The relevant § DIRECTORY section describes the policy in depth. For an even smaller change, we might change the policy title to reflect the text a bit more: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything". I think option 2 doesn't really address the issue at all, because it will merely move the discussion from being WP:NOT-related to WP:N-related (and likely WP:V-related). Option 2 will also likely lead to BLP issues with directories of people. I think option 1 adds an unnecessary new ambiguity to a policy that has relatively clear delineations between where we are flexible and where we are less flexible. —siroχo20:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose GNG is not an alternative because that sets conditions for the notability of a topic not its contents. That people have created sockpuppets and refuse to follow this is not a reason to remove it, rather it shows it is performng a desired and useful function. NadVolum (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Agreed with NadVolum: GNG determines what can have its own stand-alone article, not what can be covered in article content (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is that). I also don't think that WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is actually broken in any way. The fact that we do have consensus to not exclude members of a few narrow categories of things (populated places, and species of plant or animal, were considered inherently notable last I looked, but there aren't a lot of other things that are). That doesn't make Wikipedia simply a "directory" or "database" of them; we still expect the content about each to be (or at least become) encyclopedic in nature. Rather, NOTDIRECTORY is really about things like trying to treat WP as an alternative to the yellow pages listing every business or IMDb listing every TV show and movie and short film ever made, and other over-inclusive works of that sort. It's over-inclusion because the subjects aren't notable or non-indiscriminate (we don't want a set of list articles, either, that try to include every business in history or ever filmic work that ever existed). But if we've categorically defined something like species as inherently notable and encyclopedic, then by definition including them isn't over-inclusion of something non-notable and unencyclopedic. I.e., the conflict is illusory. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
2 Even among those who like the way it is, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes a directory and what does not. Let's remove it and discuss what, if anything, should replace it. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Weak 2 – I started trying to rephrase 1 in a way to clarify that Wikipedia is not always a directory and the word indiscriminate popped up. Which leads me to think WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE does the trick. J947 † edits04:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
No change. NOTDIR also applies to lists of external links, or tables full of external links, often included for promotional reasons, sometimes included in a misguided good-faith attempt at completeness. The first two choices given by the proposer would weaken a reason for removing such lists of links. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Some change, but not this change. It's clear that "Wikipedia is not a directory" is misleading, because it does contain directories of many things where it is agreed that the whole set and/or all its members are notable, e.g. populated places, species, world heritage sites, Grade I listed buildings, Formula One World Drivers' Champions, railway stations in Germany, Friends episodes, etc. However there are also at least equally many things that consensus has determined we should not be a directory of, e.g. (taken from AfDs closed as delete) 2015 MLB games on ESPN, FIFA World Cup broadcasters, trees in Denmark, Kindergartens in Hong Kong, Parkruns in Australia. Additionally there are things were consensus is unclear or more complicated, and of course Wikipedia does contain a directory of Wikipedia articles (i.e. categories). "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything" is the best alternative phrasing I've seen suggested here but I'm also open to other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
No change There is enough trouble with keeping the listings relevant. Deprecating WP:NOTDIR opens, IMHO, the door for more spam-lists and listings. The Bannertalk17:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Change, maybe Basically per Siroxo and Thryduulf. I think removing this entirely would encourage tendentious arguments for indiscriminate material. However, I see NOTDIR (and more frequently, NOTDATABASE) being used to argue that complete coverage of a large set of topics is undesirable or contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia. There's no a priori reason we can't decree that "routine" coverage contributes to notability, for our purposes; we could write many new articles both as informative and as accurate as those on subjects we currently deem notable. Some readers would find these useful; but we refrain from doing so, in the general case, because we consider their utility to be outweighed by the additional maintenance burden it places on the encyclopedia. There's a certain circularity to the arguments above: changing our current policies would destroy the encyclopedia! Why? Because people would write a bunch of bad articles. How do we know they're bad? They don't meet our current policies. Choess (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I've seen this ("complete coverage of a large set of topics is undesirable"). I've also seen NOTDATABASE used to argue that you can't cite databases, or that databases can't be reliable sources, so they never 'count' towards notability. The community has a problem with people giving WP:UPPERCASE answers, without reading what they're linking to. My favorite recent example is the experienced editor who told me that something would violate WP:ADVERTISING. I'm sure it was a heartfelt statement, but you can't "violate" a disambiguation page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
1 or 2. I think that this needs to go, although I am not wedded to a specific set of implementation details. It's absurdly broad, and not even correct: Wikipedia is a directory — in fact probably the world's most comprehensive and widely-used directory — for many subjects. For example, list of presidents of the United States, list of presidents of the Swiss Confederation, list of heads of state of the Maldives, List of captains regent of San Marino, et cetera. Are these "directory entries"? Are they "encyclopedia articles"? More importantly: who cares? This is a preposterous thing to use to determine whether or not we have an article listing the presidents of the Maldives. We should determine whether or not it's possible to write an accurate, neutral, and reliable sourced article that meaningfully describes a thing. If the answer is "yes", we should have an article about that thing, and if the answer is "no", we should not. There is no genre of argument which is dumber, or more pointless to the writing of an encyclopedia, than people trading blows over whether or not an article is "a directory" -- at that point, we might as well have a policy saying that "articles must be based and not cringe". jp×g20:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@JPxG, I tend to agree with you, but perhaps there are some limits? I think we would also agree that a bare list of Sikhs currently employed by Google or Civilians with US security clearances would not be appropriate. These might be useful (e.g., if you were Sikh and wanted to find coreligionists to lobby Google to recognize one of your religious holidays), but they're not IMO educational. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
1 or 2. We should absolutely not require our coverage of topics to be non-comprehensive, in general. For some topics, comprehensiveness is not possible, and for some, it is not desirable, but it should not be a general rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
No change, per Guy. Also, bad RfC; the opening statement is not neutral.
With this, Guy proposes dropping sourcing standards to allow inclusion, and permitting the creation of essentially unsourceable articles. Permitting such articles would be a direct violation of WP:V and, by extension, WP:NPOV as it is impossible to determine what content is WP:DUE for inclusion without reliable sources. In addition, it will in most cases result in violations of WP:OR. Allowing any of these core policies to be violated would be damaging to the encyclopedia; to allow all of them to be violated would be devastating.
Further, we are not permitted to allow violations of NPOV; even if I was the only editor opposing this proposal, NPOV reads This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.BilledMammal (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No change - I use this pretty often as a reason to remove clutter. Routine see office location listings, name drops (such as Celebrities A, B, C... Z) and customer lists within articles. Graywalls (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Brushing aside the intentional-trainwrecking here, 1-ish (leaning 2). As JPxG notes, Wikipedia is a directory plenty of the time, or else we'd mass-delete lists of animals and politicians. In general the whole NOT complex probably needs blowing up and rewriting from scratch, given its context is referring to a completely different internet era to the one that exists today. In 2001, we needed to make it clear that Wikipedia wasn't a directory or a dating site or a memorial, so we could steer it in the direction it's evolved in rather than being the Yellow Pages or a listing of dating profiles or Legacy.com. No one today is going to mistake Wikipedia for a dating site and very few people mistake it for somewhere to upload memorials of their recently-deceased grandmother, and the sense in which people mistake it for a business directory is very much not the sense relevant to this-specific NOT criterion. NOTDIRECTORY is really not useful in the modern age, because it only serves to induce the sort of tendentious arguments that...are happening here, and everything it has that has clear community consensus is covered by NOTINDISCRIMINATE (or "not spam", given the objection about "but what if someone has a huge table of external links to their company?"). Vaticidalprophet02:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a well thought out point in that NOT does need a freshening up, but there are some parts I disagree with. Most importantly regarding businesses and professionals, at AfD these days, NOTPROMO and NOTCV (or my preferred NOTLINKEDIN) are some of the most important easy points to raise (I'm drafting an essay about some of this at WP:PROPRO). If we scrapped this aspect NOT, we'd be in the "prove a negative" situation, and a lot more subtle spam would sneak through.
Regarding WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically, I think there is a misunderstanding, and some people over apply it, but that's more of an WP:UPPERCASE problem, because the policy as written is pretty nuanced and makes some clear distinctions. I might support a well thought out rewrite that merges NOTINDISCRIMINATE, NOTDIRECTORY and even NOTEVERYTHING to some degree, but it's not as simple as getting rid of NOTDIRECTORY. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater ;) —siroχo03:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that NOTPROMO/NOTCV are really big deals now, much bigger than they were when NOT was conceptualized. I think that's kind of stapling ideas onto something that wasn't really built for it, though. There's a lot of core policy that needs significant redoing these days (e.g. OR is horribly misunderstood and should, as a first step, be moved to "Wikipedia is not a primary source" -- as it stands you get a lot of plenty-experienced editors assuming things like "SELFCITE is banned because citing something you worked on is OR"). If we went for a radical "blank NOT and readd what clearly works twenty years later, under a completely different Wikipedia on a completely different internet", anti-spam would get through trivially, but I don't think NOTDIRECTORY would. Vaticidalprophet04:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No change (3) or some other change Agree with @siroχo and @Thryduulf. The policy language could be refined a bit but I certainly oppose the removal of the policy as a whole, and I think that the proposed change does not make any sense. --Lenny Marks (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Change to reflect actual practice; Wikipedia has literally hundreds of thousands of lists, and any one of them could be called a "directory" and sought to be deleted under the most impractical interpretations of the current wording. BD2412T04:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think suggested change would help in any way. The world has changed in the last decades, there are many other places to get indiscriminate information. We don't need to assist in hosting it. And we absolutely need to cut as much of it out from en.wiki as we can. JMWt (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No change. Of all the problems in the Wikimedia movement, this is one of the most minor possible issues. It is incredibly beneficial to have a fairly complete set of articles under a certain topic that has a good number of notable entries; trying to cram them all into mega-lists would make the reading and editing experience miserable. An encyclopedia would not spontaneously combust from the mere existence of a few extra articles. SounderBruce06:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose in the strongest possible terms: the only real reason given in the (non-neutral) opening statement is that is causes drama at XfD. Really, what doesn't cause drama there? As GreenMeansGo noted, inclusionism/deletionism is inherent in the system. NOTDIR is essential in maintaining the first pillar, working in hand with INDISCRIMINATE. Why would we want to remove it? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]12:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No change - This is an encyclopedia. I realize that some editors advocate including every last bit of human knowledge, or at least, every last bit of knowledge about their favorite topic, in Wikipedia, but that is not what an encyclopedia is for. - Donald Albury15:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Weak option 1. I think much of the issue boils down to interpretation of "directory", and much of NOTDIR could easily be relocated to other sections of policy. That being said, I'm weakly in favour of option 1, since it's the best option without a complete overhaul of the NOTDIR section (since the latter would probably just cause more disruption). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose The only problem that's been identified here is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument - there's absolutely no problem with this in current practice. The places with "inherent notability" have been significantly more limited in recent times, but either have inherent notability because GNG should cover them, or because they're topics which were covered by specialty print encyclopedias. SportingFlyerT·C15:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, unless I missed something the community has for the most part rejected the concept of "inherent notability" and that consensus is getting stronger not weaker so I think OP might be wrong about what is inevitable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 – The policy itself is pretty specific about what qualifies as a directory, so 2 is too far. And adding "generally" per 1 would just mean litigating what that means. I think the issue is just taking the heading too literally. (A comparison: Does "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" mean no current events can be covered? As the actual policy and general practice make clear, no.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Does "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" mean no current events can be covered? As the actual policy and general practice make clear, no. I'd give NOTNEWS as a pretty good example of why NOT needs to be redone from scratch, actually, precisely because of this issue. No one needs to be told anymore "Wikipedia is not what the NYT website looked like in 2002". Because this is so assumed, people assume NOTNEWS means something totally different to what it does (what that is depends on the individual). "Wikipedia is not 2002!NYT-site", "Wikipedia is not a phone book", and "Wikipedia is not eHarmony" I thought that one was going to be OkCupid, but wow -- this page is older than OkCupid are not concepts anyone needs reiterated today, and indeed are totally outside the Overton window of what ideas people approach Wikipedia with, so attempts to view them through a modern framework end up distorted. This is why we end up with a huge red box that distresses readers on every current events article during its period of highest activity, because no one is willing to wait and see if and when the merge target arises, and why we end up with people making intentionally-trainwrecked "putting a strawman on CENT" RfCs to try interpret NOTDIR in any way suited for the 2020s. Vaticidalprophet07:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with @Vaticidalprophet that NOTNEWS is frequently misunderstood (or not read. People don't always glork the right meaning from context, especially when a policy is mis-cited. Since the telephone game is our primary method of direct instruction, this can result in really odd outcomes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Option 3, no change, oppose, etc. Didn't we just get done settling this recently? Wikipedia is not and should not be a content free-for-all. The solution here isn't to just give up on enforcing any sort of standards. It's to make it very clear to people baselessly asserting notability that they need to get better arguments or their AfD !votes will be ignored. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You can't control other people mis-citing policy. That has nothing to do with keeping or removing this policy. If you want a perfect Wikipedia it ain't gonna happen. If someone is mis-citing policy you point it out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Option 3, thoroughly misguided RfC. If we routinely block people and more strictly enforce NOTDIR than we used to, then NOTDIR actually does reflect editing practice and community consensus as established over the last few years. An argument for deprecating NOTDIR would have been if we didn't delete these articles and block these editors despite violating NOTDIR. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 I don't really buy the impetus of this RfC. The fact that there are disagreements about NOTDIR doesn't mean that it's actually in dispute by a majority of editors; I would say the recent RfCs, the tightening of SNGS, etc. are witness to the fact that there isn't much stomach for changing it, let alone loosening it, and we just have different editors trying to weaken it via different RfCs that keep failing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk11:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Moral support for option 2 because I agree that it doesn't more harm than good. Obviously, Wikipedia should not be a directory of the type described in any of the six points of WP:NOTDIR. But as Vaticidalprophet has already said, people rarely mistake it for one in the way they did in the 2000s. More often that not the guideline is cited—rather bizarrely and with little basis in the text, IMO—as a reason why shouldn't keep series of short articles on topics of niche interest, which isn't actually a principle that has ever gained broad consensus (as an entry in NOT would imply). – Joe (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No change. The proponent has not made an adequate case here. I'm particularly opposed to the "it causes disagreements so we should just capitulate" line of argument.--Srleffler (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No change The language in NOTDIR is generally fine and the six points in this section remains good policy. I do appreciate Thryduulf's comments. The specific guideline for lists is captured well at WP:LISTCRITERIA. --Enos733 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No change NOT is fundamental to the encyclopedia, and NOTDIR as relevant to the rest as a defence against hobbyists and general sh*t and mummery. If anything, it should be expanded. SN5412917:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No change. NOTDIR is useful for keeping out the crap. If there has to be a debate at AfDs so be it. Debates also occur at AfDs surrounding GNG. So, there is nothing new here. The coverage of this policy is clearly stated in the opening paragraph, which also acknowledges that Wikipedia has lists. So, this means that the types of acceptable lists are distinguished in the intro and are further distinguished with the six bulleted paragraphs. And, satisfying notability criteria is key, according to these various definitions. The radical removal of this policy would open a Pandora's box. And removing it would only add to contentious discussions. Also, the intro clearly states that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." I think that statement sufficiently satisfies the intent behind NOTDIR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alternative proposal regarding NOTDIR
Based on the discussion above it's clear that there is not support for deprecating or significantly changing the wording of the policy, however it is also clear that there are real problems with it being cited incorrectly. A way that might help with that, and which I think is worth trying, is to:
Rename the section to something like "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything" (exact title can be discussed) to better reflect its actual content.
Deprecate the WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY shortcuts, e.g. by retargetting them to a short page or section that explains they have been deprecated because they commonly misinterpreted, explicitly discourages further use of the shortcuts and links (without redirection) to the actual policy.
There would be no prohibition on creating new shortcuts that reflect the new name of the section, but whether and what redirects to create is explicitly not part of this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Can I instead suggest starting a discussion showing how it's been misinterpreted and misused, and changes to the wording that would limit or alleviate those misinterpretation? If the current short cuts are being misused, then any new shortcuts will be misused in the same way unless the root cause is corrected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
How is it "clear that there are real problems with it being cited incorrectly"? There's certainly nowhere close to an emerging consensus that this actually is a problem--at most only 41% of respondents think there ought to be "something" done differently. JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
That does not at all sound to me like accepting the consensus. Anyway yes, please elucidate what you feel is wrong or what message you would like editors to take away that presently they don't. NadVolum (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to phrase it more clearly than I did in the introduction and in other comments, but "Wikipedia is not a directory" is an oversimplification because many Wikipedia articles, particularly lists, are directories and/or share a lot of characteristics of directories. What Wikipedia is actually not is a directory of everything or an indiscriminate directory. Arguing for the exclusion of some content because Wikipedia is not a directory is not helpful, instead argue why Wikipedia should not include a directory of that subject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
So basically you want to do what removing NOTDIR would do - move the onus onto people who think a directory is inappropriate to argue why it should not be included. So exactly what would your argument be about somebody who wanted to include the full cast of the Lord ot the Rings film or do you think that would be okay? NadVolum (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm explicitly not proposing removing NOTDIR, just giving it a more nuanced title. Assuming you don't want to include the full cast of Lord of the Rings (I have no immediate opinion either way) then argue why we shouldn't include a directory of actors of the film for reasons other than "Wikipedia is not a directory" because that doesn't make sense when we do have other directories of people, e.g. those who have won an Oscar for best actor. If "Wikipedia is not a directory" were true then we wouldn't have either. i.e. you should explain why this directory is inappropriate. Really that's what you should be doing anyway as you should always be discussing the merits (or otherwise) of the specific content not generic types of content. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from - both a list of the cast of Lord of the Rings and a list of people who have won an Oscar for best actor could be seen as directories that shouldn't exist, but the actual relevant text, Simple listings, tells us that the former is not permitted because we cannot show encyclopedic merit for such a list, while the latter is permitted because we can show such merit.
However, I think we need to see evidence that there is a problem before trying to solve it; I agree with ActivelyDisinterested when they suggested starting a discussion showing how it's been misinterpreted and misused. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The difference between the title and the actual text is the exact issue this is attempting to solve. I'll try and fish out some examples next time I've got time and am sufficiently awake. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Once again I'm explicitly not proposing to remove NOTDIR. The language of the policy will not change, only the section title and the shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
That's not an answer to what I asked, and it sounds tantamount to going around and changing the edits of thousands of editors to refer to something othe than what they meant to refer to. How it is supposed to help in the future either I don't know as editors will use the new name in the policy. If there is an explanation then it should be linked belowthe title of the section but it sounds to me that you want the policy changed and the way to do that is to actually change the policy. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
And redirect all the current links to it to somewhere else. So exactly why would one change the current links to point somewhere else and then have new links to the curtrent text? I do not want any more of your 'I don't wat to' rubbish - just a clear explanation of what the hell you are hoping will happen and why. NadVolum (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, these comments are starting to come across as a bit uncivil. Might want to reconsider some of the phrasing and word choice. Best. —siroχo20:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I was expressing that I felt frustration at the lack of a clear answer to what is the purpose of the fiddling around with the links, perhaps you could explain why that would would be a good thing rather than causing trouble? As far as I can see it changes what thousands of editors meant to do and in the future editors will ignore the place that explains the policy and would point to the actual policy anyway. If it is so important to have some explanation before looking at the policy then the policy needs changing but they say they don't want to change the policy. Perhaps you can explain why I am wrong or why that makes sense and is a reasonable thing to do? NadVolum (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I explained in the very first post what I propose doing and why. I have since attempt to explain it again several times. I don't understand why you are not understanding me, or why you seem to be assuming I must be doing something other than what I am saying. I will try one more time, I apologise if this comes across as patronising or anything like that but it's literally the only way I can think of to explain in a different way.
The text of the policy states that Wikipedia does not include specific types of things which might be described as a directory.
The text of the policy is silent about other types of things that might be described as directories (with the exception of "a directory of it's own contents", which it explicitly permits).
Wikipedia includes many things that might be described as directories, none of which (other than directories of its own contents) are listed in the policy.
The policy is titled "Wikipedia is not a directory", despite this not being what the policy actually says and not matching what Wikipedia does and does not include.
I propose to change the title of the policy so that the title of the policy more closely matches the text of the policy.
I do not propose to change the text of the policy.
I separately propose to change the target of two redirects to this policy so that it links to the policy indirectly via a page that explains that "Wikipedia is not a directory" is the former title of the policy but that the title was changed because it did not match the wording of the policy. This would not change the meaning of what anybody said, but provide context so people can better understand what what was meant.
I am proposing this because:
Some people are thinking that the title reflects the policy and are opposing content that the policy does not prohibit (e.g. they oppose content because "Wikipedia is not a directory" even though the content is a type of directory not mentioned by this policy)
Some people are misunderstanding opposition to content based on the text of the policy because the title misleads them (e.g. they are told that content is not appropriate because "Wikipedia is not a directory" even though they know that Wikipedia contains other content that is a directory when what is actually meant is that e.g. "Wikipedia is not a simple listing")
As far as I can see you are agreeing with what I said you were doing but have not tackled the points about it that I said. THerefore I am very much opposed to the busines of fiddling around with the links. As to the rename of the section I don't see that it would accomplish much, the text below it is te policy not the title. Titles are supposed to be shortways of referring to the contents.I'll sit on the fence about the title, I tend to just let people get on with things like that if they feel they must, I just don't see it'll achieve anything. NadVolum (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I definitely support the simple section rename. I also think NOT has some UPPERCASE problems so I am generally supportive of trying to fix them. Your idea of redirecting them to a "deprecation" page would probably help a bit but I'm not sure how much. Will {{slink}} etc, or new UPPERCASE actually solve the problem? Some people will still misunderstand the policies. —siroχo09:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I remember starting an RM to rename the essay that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS used to link to, which was explicitly about how that logic is frequently wrong. It closed successfully...and the redirect was later retargeted to an uncritical section about the same thing in ATA, with the hatnote changed to claim the essay wasn't about deletion (it is). Sometimes people go out of their way not to be helped. Vaticidalprophet09:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The entire discussion is confused. According to a quick dictionary search, a directory is: A book containing an alphabetical or classified listing of names, addresses, and other data, such as telephone numbers, of specific persons, groups, or firms. Everything at WP:NOTDIR covers specific examples of these, but the original nominator assumed that WP:NOTDIR covered a small list of things with inherent or quasi-inherent notability. Changing WP:NOTDIR to allow what, lists? Which are already valid within articles and already valid as stand-alone articles. The status quo is fine. SportingFlyerT·C17:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how this alternative proposal is useful or that it would be effective. The intro of this policy already states: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." So this alternate proposal becomes moot regarding that issue. Instead of this alternate proposal, I agree with User:ActivelyDisinterested. They suggest: " starting a discussion showing how [NOTDIR has] been misinterpreted and misused, and changes to the wording that would limit or alleviate those misinterpretations." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I sympathize with what Thryduulf is trying to get at here, but in the end agree with starting a discussion showing how [NOTDIR has] been misinterpreted and misused, and changes to the wording that would limit or alleviate those misinterpretations. I think that would be more effective than fiddling with headings and shortcuts. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Side note I told the closer of the above RFC that it might be too soon for a close [24]. The RFC has only been open for three or four days (Sep. 1st to Sep 4th). And I requested that they either self-revert or reopen the RFC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn, @JPxG: I do not see a benefit to re-opening this RfC. Could you explain what benefit you see? Even if you disagree that it's WP:SNOWing, I see a discussion where editors (who voted on different options) seem to largely agree the proposal is unfocused and needs refinement. WP:NOTBURO - the discussion doesn't need to be open for 30+ days.EDIT: Also, to me it seems that the majority of editors that have voiced their opinions on this after the closure would have also supported Option 3 had the discussion been left open. That seems like a good sign that it was, in fact, snowing. casualdejekyll23:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
IMO not a good idea. I don't see any problem which this corrects and do see problems which this would make worse by weakening wp:Not a directory. Most of Wikipedia is a fuzzy system with each situation influenced by multiple rules and guidances which are by necessity written with slightly fuzzy fording that is subject to varying interpretations. This (by necessity and rightly so) is the case with most policies and guidelines yet this thread treats it as inherently a problem that needs to be fixed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This remains good policy and a good description of general practice. If there are generally accepted exceptions where Wikipedia is in fact a directory, this discussion would benefit from those examples. I have my doubts that they are consistent or important enough to change this policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles
Question: If Wikipedia is not a democracy is it an autocracy? Oligarchy? Dictatorship?
The average person has no say in anything on the Wiki, if I'm not mistaken, but are there checks and balances? If an admin starts banning people for disagreeing (on a non-moderation/disciplinary issue, just discussion), or for asking questions, can the admin be disciplined? 72.72.200.247 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
What is it? Calvinball mostly. Which is to say, an online game where we make the rules up on the go, and its never entirely clear what 'winning' would look like, since we don't all have the same objectives, and there isn't a scoreboard. It isn't an anything-ocracy, since these are terms from political science applied at the governmental level, and Wikipedia isn't a political or economic system. Missapply terms in contexts they aren't intended for, and you can ask all sorts of questions that have no sensible answer. Look up social capital if you want to figure out who gets the most say in making up rules, and on how the 'discipline' system mostly works. Or doesn't work, since this is Calvinballopedia, and we rarely agree on what 'working' should look like. It is what it is, it does what it does. To understand it, study it as it is (from inside or outside) but don't try to fit it into boxes built to contain other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The average person does have a say in many things, but not everything. How much say depends on the topic, the question, the venue, the number of other participants, the argument(s) made, and other things (including what you define as "the average person"). There are checks and balances - if an admin starts banning people for disagreeing for example then any other admin can undo those bans either unilaterally (in the case of unambiguous mistakes) or after discussion with the admin in question (which can be started by anybody). discussion will happen at a suitable venue - this is usually the admin's talk page in the first instance, then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN) or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I) if that doesn't resolve matters. For isolated incidents there is also Wikipedia:Administrative action review (WP:AARV). If the matter is still not resolved (almost always this will be when the incorrect banning is repeated) or for particularly urgent or egregious matters the final step is Wikipedia:Arbitration. Read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for full details.
Be aware though that the vast majority of accusations of administrators acting out of process, banning people for no reason, etc. turn out on investigation to actually be examples of good administrative actions being labelled as bad by those who are either trolling or are genuinely unable to see the disruption their actions are causing. It is also worth noting that many, maybe most, anonymous or new editors asking questions like this are people evading blocks or bans, almost all of which are appropriate. This does not mean that this is the case here, just that it is statistically highly probable so do not be surprised if some people respond as if it is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Nah. "SNS" is not everyday language that needs to be disambiguated, but a Wikipedia-internal abbreviation of the phrase "social networking service" that appears in the policy text at this location, and not in the other policy. There is no ambiguity to resolve. However, the target of WP:SOCIALMEDIA should (and does) have a hatnote mentioning the "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site" section of this policy, since "social media" is everyday wording and there's a fairly high likelihood the section here is actually what someone meant when using "WP:SOCIALMEDIA" as a shortcut. I think I've made that mistake myself pretty recently, actually. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
"a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas."
A regular subject of discussion in the Geographical field on here is whether, and to what extent, Wikipedia is a gazetteer. This becomes a particular issue at AFD or in discussions about the notability of certain locations. WP:5P (a non-binding list of principles) states that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopaedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This has been interpreted in two different ways:
1) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with features of a gazetteer.
2) Wikipedia is a gazetteer.
I'm sure there's others, these are just the two most common ones. Generally speaking, advocates of the second position tend to take a more expansive view of what the geographical coverage hosted on Wikipedia should be than advocates of the first view. However, there is (as far as I know?) no explicit consensus on this expressed anywhere. I would like to ask the people here at WP:NOT what their view is on this - does it match 1), 2), or another third option? This isn't intended as a formal RFC, more as just a way of getting input from people outside the area of dispute. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with some features of a gazetteer. It can't actually be a gazetteer, because it also has many features that are not features of a gazetteer, and (probably more substantively) a gazetteer is a geographical dictionary, and WP is not a dictionary. Similarly, WP has some features of a biographical dictionary, but is not one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a project that does not fit cleanly into a single category of print reference work. Most notably it includes a comprehensive general encyclopaedia, but additionally it includes elements of many other types of work. For example it includes many features of specialist encyclopaedias, dictionaries (general, etymological, geographical, scientific, etc), gazetteers, almanacs, and more. So saying Wikipedia is or is not any one of those things is incorrect, because it's more complicated than that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, if there's a named geographical feature then it's reasonable that Wikipedia should have a link for it which either goes to an article about that place or to a more general article about the area. Features like coordinates and photographs work well with such topics too. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has gone quiet, but for the avoidance of doubt I essentially agree with SMcCandlish - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. We write encyclopaedia articles, not dictionary entries. It might be that we go beyond what paper encyclopaedias cover, but we do not cover everything in the way a dictionary does. FOARP (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
One thing I would like to add is that Wikipedia has, over the course of the last two decades, completely changed public expectations of what an encyclopedia is. In my view, Wikipedia is as different from a traditional paper encyclopedia as a traditional paper encyclopedia is from a dictionary. Thus, discussions about what is "encyclopedic" can be overly conservative, as we are in uncharted territory. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
My answer to this question, based largely on WP:5P, is that Wikipedia is not NOT a Gazetteer
That is, by consensus to date, WP:NOT cannot be used to argue on the basis of sitewide consensus that an article, or article content, does not belong in Wikipedia on the basis that Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer, since by consensus at a high conlevel, Wikipedia does have certain features specific to a Gazetteer.
On the other hand, Wikipedia does not by consensus have all the features of a Gazetteer, so it is not simply a Gazetteer, either, even among other functions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
IMO 5P is more than an essay but we do not have a category for such. The gazetteer provision is a finger on the scale towards inclusion of geographic articles operating within the framework of Wikipedia:How_editing_decisions_are_made. So the "gazetteer" function is a finger on the scale towards inclusion of such but not a categorical definition that we are a gazetteer on geographic items. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with features of a gazetteer. However, Wikipedia includes articles for some places which are too tiny and insignificant to appear even in a gazetteer. We should avoid accepting such articles in future and consider removing the existing ones. Certes (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
A change with input from only 2 people is not really a smart way to claim that there was a discussion to change a policy page. Masem (t) 12:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
That comment doesn't make any sense. There was in fact a discussion, and making a change based on it is not a "claim" pertaining to either the change or the discussion. Maybe you need some coffee? The very reason I posted a notice on this page was to provide a discussion point about this (more central to the page in question), link to the prior discussion for transparency, and discourage any claim of "no discussion". Someone could still revert, of course, and ask for more discussion, but "no discussion" isn't an applicable rationale in this case, and hopefully someone has more useful input than such a complaint, or a weird one that the change was a "claim" about discussion. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree with this edit. Wikipedia is independent and does not heed external petitions. Simple clarifications do not require an entire site-wide RFC posted to CENT and closed by an admin before being appealed to AN and then re-closed by a team of admins (optionally with an ARBCOM case on the issue). It is notable how when, in the past, changes were made by BOLD edits that weren’t reverted these are now treated as if written in stone, but if a BOLD edit is attempted now these are reverted with no actual rationale beyond “not discussed”. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit old school on these things, but I generally think this type of change is fine. There's a risk of CREEP (and NOT is a large policy as it stands). But, this change itself is both an obvious one on its own, and even had discussion on VPR. —siroχo02:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I thought I would just throw out there something I've thought for a while but which has been brought to a head for me by the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion article and its talk page. Should new articles on major ongoing news events (particularly/only if they are controversial) be restricted to being only stubs in the first X days of the news story unrolling? These articles currently, and seemingly inevitably, during the first days of their life act as:
purely a news aggregator
the crucible for (pre-existing) POVs to play out, particularly though not exclusively where CT applies and where enabled by a lack of hard facts.
Sure, the encyclopedia should be up-to-date, but when facts are unknown/confused/disputed simply because it's in the early hours/days of the incident, where is the encyclopedic value? WP:THEREISNORUSH. Tbh, I'm expecting little pick-up for this - these articles seem to be quite ingrained in WP culture, not least because we have ITN on the front page (although everyone seems to complain about it) - but I thought I'd just spit-ball it anyway. DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There really isn't any means by which to do that, since stub doesn't have a precise and enforceable definition, and WP:EDITING policy permits editors to add material (within other policy constratints like WP:V and WP:DUE). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, WP:EDITING would need to change as well - I've added a link to this thread on that talk page. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man (or any person) to come up with a phrase that can be reasonably interpreted as saying the article needs to be kept to a minimal statement simply defining the scope of the article and nothing more until day X - what that might that actually look like in any particular case would still be subject to local WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, my point was that carving a hole in a central policy that barely changes (except in non-substantive copyediting ways) like WP:EDITING just because breaking-news coverage quality is difficult to maintain isn't something that's likely to happen. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is usually quite successful at covering unfolding news stories like major hurricanes. Yes, there is a huge amount of fighting and edit wars for controversial topics (also for largely uncontroversial topics like who won the last US presidential election), and they will take a while to settle down at an encyclopaedic coverage. I think that's a feature of the wiki model, and legislating against it is bad: it is going to make some articles needlessly outdated while increasing the fighting about which articles should be deliberately not updated. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
We're usually good when the stories are 1) non-political in nature (like weather events or other natural disasters) and 2) when they happen in a place well-covered by English/Western media. What we tend to run into are lots and lots of misfires of bad info or the like when the event is breaking in an area that has significant political ramifications (meaning that editors tend to overrun NPOV to get in news points favorable to one side or the other) and/or where there's poor clarity of what actually happened from reliable sources (eg the type of coverage happening now in the Gaza conflict). We need editors to not try to fight to include up-to-the-second type level of coverage, but wait until a clearer picture can be made from RSes so that even though our coverage may be several hours delayed from when things are known, we're at least putting in what are significant aspects in a neutral form. Its more of a behaviorial problem than a content problem, though I have long believed that we need stronger NOTNEWS enforcement, where we should prefer to wait to even create articles on events until we have a good indication that the event meets NEVENT, which should be at a point that a good, NPOV-compliant article can be written that represents the best consensus of what has happened from RSes by that point. Masem (t) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, there are certainly a lot of POV editors but I don't think they can solely be blamed for shoddy partisan sourcing; it's just something that exists in far greater quality for political topics. Very few people are covering earthquakes with the aim of owning the libs/cons, so you are unlikely to get that sort of thing in a sweep of available sources, even if you aren't very careful (or familiar with reliability in the field of earthquake journalism). I just referenced a bunch of eclipse articles, for example, and not once did I have to spend a single moment evaluating the political leanings of a source. jp×g13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
largely uncontroversial topics like who won the last US presidential election Yes, current percentage of Republicans who believe Trump won is 70% nearly three years later. Everything is political and controversial these days: elections, race, sexuality, books, guns, religion, drag shows, abortion, immigration, education, climate change. When events occur, like the recent hospital explosion and reported beheadings, we have a stream of SPA IPs entering the fray and reams of unverified info is added. We keep forgetting that we are not a "breaking news" TV channel. IMO nothing should be added until the fog has lifted. Media must report quickly to scoop the competition. We should not worry about competition. We should concentrate on getting it right the first time. Of course I know this won't change and I may as well try to nail pudding to a tree. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The main problem here is there is no definition of what a stub is and even if there was no way of keeping people within that. I do think that covering the subject as a rolling news story makes for bad historical articles though. Just take a look at any story that Wikipedia covered as a rolling news story when it happened and compare it to events that occurred before Wikipedia was created - you'll see that contemporaneous and minute-by-minute coverage dominates, crowding out the more considered historical coverage written later and making the article unnecessary long and essentially not the kind of summary of what secondary sources say about the subject that we look for in an encyclopaedia article. I also think that the older articles are better at maintaining NPOV since they are based on secondary coverage, not primary sources. Some examples:
The 2008 Russo-Georgian War, written mostly based on contemporaneous news coverage with little re-visiting since to incorporate secondary sources, and very long at 11800 words readable prose. Compare this with our coverage of the pre-Wikipedia First Chechen War - much better use of secondary sources, much more of the kind of summary we should aim to have despite being in every way a bigger topic than the 2008 war, with only 5873 words of readable prose. From an NPOV perspective the First Chechen War article is way better, the 2008 conflict article spends way too much time focusing on minutiae and conspiracy theories.
The UK 2005 general election (3135 words readable prose) with the UK 1997 general election (2596 words readable prose). Again, the pre-Wikipedia 1997 election was in every way a bigger story since it was a "change" election whilst the 2005 election did not result in great changes, yet in the 2005 election we focused so much more on what happened minute-by-minute contemporaneously without really summarising what happened. There is almost certainly way more written in secondary sources about the 1997 election since it has been heavily analysed, but that hasn't impacted our coverage to the extent that simply having editors editing stuff in as it happens has. The most recent UK general election (2019) weighs in at a whopping 10687 words of readable prose, again for an election that is still a smaller story than the 1997 one. The 2019 article is also pretty bad for NPOV since it seems the partisans of each party have been way more active on it (e.g., referencing the performance of nearly every party including SDLP and Alliance in the lead section)
Of course I get that this is partly driven by the internet and social media delivering a firehose-like stream of information that just wasn't available in the same way pre-2001, but there really needs to be a review of these articles a couple of years out from them being written to cut down on the bric-a-brac of 24-hour-reportage and meme stories, and also to incorporate secondary sourcing in to replace stuff that was only covered in primary sources (and cut out the primary-source-only stuff where it is undue). FOARP (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
It would be supremely valuable if we could come up with a better actual working definition of what NOTNEWS means insofar as current events articles. Being able to delete or merge breathless coverage would be a lot easier if you could say "this hasn't had significant coverage in X years" and people wouldn't fight you on it. As is, the problem seems to have gotten worse in recent years (I suppose COVID isolation is the reason we have excruciating month-by-month details on the pandemic, or tried to create articles on every single protests in America in 2020) and trying to clean it up is a thankless and often frustrating task because some people will stonewall any improvement if it's still net fewer bytes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the issue is that at present WP:NOTNEWS focuses on what gets an article, and not on what goes into articles. COVID obviously warrants an article overall. Whether, right now in October 2023, COVID-19 pandemic in Scotlandreally needs a day-by-day timeline and a sentence to discuss the cancellation of Radio 1's Big Weekend, well, I don't think it does - but how do you codify that? Probably not at WP:NOT level but at a guideline level for WP:EVENTS?
We need something very general like the WP:TOOLARGE guidelines for when we should start turning these current-events stories into historical articles. Say:
Less than 2 years - no action needed.
More than 2 years - start looking for secondary sources to replace primary ones, re-analysing what is WP:UNDUE coverage.
More than 5 years - Secondary sources should be preferred for everything. If it can only be sourced to a primary source, then re-consider whether it is WP:UNDUE,
More than 10 years - This WP:EVENT should be considered historical and analysed from that viewpoint, using historical, secondary sources.
We wouldn't write an article about the battle of Britain based overwhelmingly on contemporaneous reports in the BBC, Times, New York Times etc., why are we doing that for the events of the past 20 years? FOARP (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This is going on a slightly different track than I was originally thinking. But yes I think something like that wold be useful. Articles developed as events unfold (eg armed conflicts, political scandals and like events, crime and litigation) stay cryogenically frozen in the chronological reportage format that they were created in. It's like looking at tree rings rather than the tree. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
A possible first step would be an article cleanup template (eg. {{cleanup news}}) to mark and categorize sections or articles that are still written like developing news even when the news has passed. Such an option gives editors who were/are invested in the news story aspect a transition period as well which might help reduce resistance toward such improvements. —siroχo16:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Tagging seems a low-drama way to proceed that won't just trigger a backlash because someone decided to delete [insert stuff that can only be sourced to contemporaneous primary sources and has possibly since been ignored or even debunked by secondary sources here]. It also pings the page to see if people there are still invested in the event. Something like:
| fix = Please try to place this event in historical context, making appropriate use of available secondary sourcing in place of primary-source news reports, and avoiding undue focus on events that did not have a lasting impact demonstrable in secondary sources.
That's great. It could benefit from being paired with an essay (later upgradeable to a guideline) that explains the problem as well as you did above, FOARP, and that gives suggested solutions. There'll be resistance (as David Fuchs says) but this may help promote a change in attitudes. DFlhb (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Works for me too (though there's virtually no such thing as someone's essay getting promoted to guideline status, not since the early days of the project. It's more that the core ideas found in an essay that received broad community buy-in might work their way into an existing guideline or policy). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
In this same veon, we need editors to be more willing to allow deletion or merging of events that lack enduring coverage. There is a discussion along these lines at one of the VP's. It seems very difficult to delete such articles because editors insist that contemporary news reports at the time of the event account for long term notability. There needs to be some reworking if that attitude if we are going to correct the path for NOTNEWS. Masem (t) 18:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia does a pretty good job of being a news paper, e.g. the "in the news section". That section has far more intelligent and current newspaper coverage of events than any newspaper. Unfortunately those are all Wikipedia articles where NotNews should apply. Maybe we should separate them somehow. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
What I noticed about the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion article is that it was a contentious topic and so constrained by WP:1RR. But there was such a rush of edits and changes that there were numerous violations of this supposedly brightline rule. But Jimbo posted thanks for all this activity so go figure. But the good news is that Wikipedia has a disclaimer on every page that "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" so caveat lector applies to it all. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I do think we need to explore processes when we have major breaking stories that draw high attention from a large number (dozens or even hundreds) of editors; the same happened during the Jan 6 events. We dont want to lock down articles if we don't have to, but sometimes there's so many cooks that trying to keep an article both current and accurate and neutral is near impossible without editing restrictions. But even then, I suspect most information will be entered in a timeline / proseline form - the easiest way for new editors to contribute, and will still need the suggested cleanup after we can consider the event in a non-panicked retrospective. Masem (t) 00:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
FOARP, this template could be really useful. COVID-19 alone will likely require its use hundreds of times. A few thoughts:
I'm not sold on the name Template:Old news. I would have used Template:Primary news or Template:Primary news sources because that's the specific issue and it matches WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that's just one idea. Contemporaneous and blow-by-blow also describe the issue pretty well, but the former isn't memorable and the latter is a little informal.
Oppose present wording of template. A cleanup template for violations of the policy WP:NOTNEWS ought to be based on the wording of the policy WP:NOTNEWS. For example, a template that said "This article may be written in news style" or "This article may treat breaking news differently from other information" would be acceptable, because that is actually forbidden by WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, Template:Old news does not appear to reflect what WP:NOTNEWS actually says. The policy does not mention "articles about historical events based on contemporaneous, blow-by-blow reporting" and this expression should not be linked to WP:NOTNEWS unless and until the policy actually says something about that type of article content. James500 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm biased, but I like the name "old news" because it also suggests to people applying the template that we accept that as news unfolds, articles will inevitably develop in a certain way, but once it's old news, it should be improved in some way. It wouldn't be appropriate to apply this tag to current news. —siroχo07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the greater issue is the cleanup than the creation. Current event articles tend to be so heavily editted so that any problematic additions are usually dealt with quickly. But whether the event has long standing significants is something that needs to be looked at, the new template is definitely a good idea. After the event rewriting and merging may be needed to place the event in its historical context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to also add to NOTNEWS. Currently we say "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." I think if we also add "Articles on breaking news with apparent importance may start off highly detailed, often incorporating prose line, but should be improved in the long term to better summarize the article, including the potential merger or deletion of news events that fail to show enduring importance." which would help justify the suggested template and certainly in line with expectations here. --Masem (t) 00:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this edit in principle but if we’re going to change a policy we need a clear idea of where this is going (i.e, is it going to be an additional numbered bullet-point in WP:NOTNEWS?) I’m surprised that there is no explanatory guideline associated with NOTNEWS btw. All we have is two essays (WP:TMI and WP:NOTNP) and a notability guideline for events - but what we're talking about here is a content issue that is not really covered by any of these. I dislike the expansion of the MOS to cover content issues though there are style elements to this problem, but the MOS also has nothing really to say about this specifically AFAIK.
Actually, having thought about it, I'd support the making the suggested change (assuming it is a direct insert after the sentence "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.") and I don't think a full RFC is needed on this unless someone demands it - lord knows we have enough RFCs advertised to CENT only to be basically be exhausting drama-fests! FOARP (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I intended it to only clarify that sentence (as that line alone I think appropriately justifies what we're talking about here, but clearly the point doesn't seem to get across). Would not need a whole new section. Now, if one were to start a guideline or essay page about how NOTNEWS should work, that would be different... Masem (t) 11:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with this. Breaking news should be treated differently. Specifically, it should be treated as something that has been said and that might be totally wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that at most what we should do extra about an ongoing situation is simply allow it to be tagged as ongoing and liable to be wrong, the general Wikipedia caveat is not enough. Where Wikipedia is failing though is in getting round to eventually elimiating stuff that was a newspaper headline at the time but had no enduring notability. I fully support the ideas above of having tags for articles based on current news at the time but there has been enough time for a better analysis. And NOTNEWS should then support removing things which have shown no enduring interest. Though I have tried to say to other editors that something was just something to make a headline at the time and later sources have shown no interest and they just don't accept that NOTNEWS means we should just drop it a undue. There needs to be clear direction about that if articles are not to get filled with trivia. NadVolum (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I just revisited Mahsa Amini protests which started a year ago and was listed at WP:ITN for a while. It's back in the news because of the Sakharov Prize but seems that, in Iran, a crackdown is underway. So that's still an ongoing situation and the verdict of history is still pending.
Revisiting such news after a year can be instructive and so it would be interesting to have a main page section which combines elements of ITN, which does breaking news, and OTD, which does anniversaries. Newspapers and journals often republish their articles in a retrospective section which goes back 10, 50 or 100 years. Having such a section might help drive cleanup of breaking news articles.
Oppose. Many newspapers are often amongst some of the most reliable and useful sources for history from the nineteenth century onwards. (There are, in particular, many books by historians that praise the reliability and utility of newspapers as sources for this period). We do not need to restrict the use of all newspapers generally as sources or to restrict the creation or retention of articles, or article content, based on all newspapers generally. James500 (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Newspapers can be reliable, but they are not generally secondary sources. Once you can demonstrate an event notable by secondary source, using primary sources to fill in the blanks, to speak, is completely fine. Masem (t) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Most of what newspapers including the NYTimes and BBC is primary - first hand reporting. They do do analysis stories less often - a few times a week for the NYTimes for example - and those are secondary, but those are usually well after the event has first occurred and the writer has time to evaluate multiple angles on the story. These are usually the long-form pieces that we see and usually have an "analysis" byline, though not always. What we're seeing here is that most sources used in these developing stories are the primary parts of newspaper coverage, which should be replaced with secondary sources and summaries over time. Masem (t) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I agree that the solution is not to restrict newspapers. Editors don't always understand what is primary breaking news reporting. But there is already plenty of "analysis" and deeper reporting on breaking news even within days sometimes. It's inevitable that there will be fewer secondary sources, and we should use primary sources with caution and not trust them implicitly, for breaking news stories. I'm not sure I like the "old news" idea either. There's nothing inherently wrong with an article that needs to be improved being improved with WP:NODEADLINE. Andre🚐23:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree that there is no deadline. However, I think tags like the proposed {{old news}} are a good way of noting the need to improve an article without need for a deadline. Otherwise many such articles get taken straight to AfD and people have to rush to find sources (and sometimes the articles don't even improve when sources are found, or are deleted despite sources being found or deleted without much input, because AfD is such a high throughput/low participation process). —siroχo00:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This is probably where we need a guideline or an essay to describe the life of a news event article typical of those on WP. Phase one is what's written as the event is occurring and immediate aftermath, and that's where its generally reasonable that primary sources are going to be used to hit all the details. But after some time, we do want those primary sources replaced or appended with secondary sources that show the event meets NEVENT and provides a better summary rather than the blow-by-blow that it was created with. Masem (t) 01:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
An essay might be good, but the clarifications I would want to suggest are 1) the use of caution of primary sources isn't an absolute prohibition, and primary sources might remain in conjunction with secondary sources, they shouldn't necessarily be removed (you acknowledge, by saying replaced or appended), 2) there isn't a precise time window that distinguishes phases, as it's a continuous, and discretionary spectrum/judgment zone left intentionally vague to allow for consensus and decentralization, 3) while it's original research to write articles interpreting primary sources e.g. interviews or eyewitness accounts, it's not necessarily a primary source when a news org is writing detailed analysis or further discussion that's 1 step removed from the out-of-horse's-mouth reporting. That line is up to interpretation. Here's a nice summation from a research librarian or archivist who works at the University of Nebraska that I found.[26]Newspaper articles can be either primary or secondary sources. A newspaper article that documents an eyewitness account of an event would be a primary source. Alternatively, a newspaper article may be research-based, which makes it a secondary source. So it's the content, and not the timing, that makes the source primary or secondary. And sometimes, a primary source may be reasonable for factual information, if it's been researched, as opposed to a primary source like Congressional testimonies that can be attributed only because it's possibly untrue or significantly biased. Andre🚐02:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
A prohibition on news sources less than one year old would sort it and hugely improve the encyclopedia and community IMO. But this will never happen because WP:NOTNEWS is a potemkin policy. Everybody knows that Wikipedia does a lot of breaking news stuff (badly) and huge numbers of editors live for it. Wouldn't do to spoil the fun! Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
To give an example of where I think we want guidance; overnight (as I write this), a UN school hosting Gaza refugees was hit by an airstrike, killing several. It is one of several such strikes in that conflict, but there's no immediate indication that this particular strike is going to have lasting impact above and beyond the conflict itself. Yet we have someone racing to create an article on it Al-Fakhoora school airstrike. In a situation like this Gaza conflict, we should be encouraging that we focus on not necessarily trying to assess individual events being as notable as the whole, but instead making timelines and other similar summary articles to have documentation and sources that can be used to build better summaries down the road - or if its just one incident of many, maybe remove completely.I think some take how detailed our coverage of both World Wars as a sign of how detailed we can be, but in the cases of the World Wars we have had 100+ and 80+ years of historical analysis and student to explain key battles and strategies that make almost every major battle notable on its own. That's fine - that's how we should follow the long-term sources, and that's what we want to guide editors towards. --Masem (t) 14:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we can enforce that under policy, though we could add something to NEVENT; but we do desperately need a guideline or essay about how the life of a current event article might look like and the expectations for editors to clean it up over time. Masem (t) 15:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
"Profile" edit to NOTSOCIAL
I understand why someone wanted to make this edit, but I think profile is too ambiguous to include. While people at the Teahouse and Help Desk may encounter various noobs talking about "profiles" in the social media sense, that kind of page is already covered by "résumé" in the policy, and it seems very likely to me that "profile" being included would be used to hassle editors who choose to tell, on their own user page, other editors what their education/professional background is, what their interests here are, etc. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Your userpage is a user profile. It's can be very different to a social media user profile, and may or may not tell you anything explicit about the user (but choosing not to reveal any information about yourself is a profile choice) but it is a user profile. The sort of thing that I expect this is intending to prohibit is already covered by WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
And essentially the same issue with this edit, which came after an attempt to revert to the version above, despite multiple editors objecting to it. If TEAHOUSE want to create a "WP:PROFILE" shortcut that points to this section, that's up to them, but this policy has no reason to actively advertise that shortcut when it is misleading/confusing. Any given policy section may have 20 or more shortcuts, and we don't list them all. I think that undiscussed change should be undone also. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Is NOTNEWS time limited? I had an argument a while back that 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events' meant they should not be trawling archives of newspapers from thirty years ago when there were recent biographies. Basically if it something would have failed NOTNEWS years ago then a good argument would need to be made to include it now if nobody had shown any inerest since. The argument against was that NOTNEWS only applies to current events and they thought the stuff was interesting. Which way do people feel about this? NadVolum (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
No, NOTNEWS applies to past events as well. But that doesn't mean primary sources from the past at the time of events can't be used to support a topic that is otherwise considered notable (eg already has secondary sources). Masem (t) 16:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Old newspapers and such are often vital for details in topics (with notability already established through other, better sources), like historical sports figures, especially in sports like balkline billiards that don't get much modern coverage. Like any primary source, they can be abused. E.g., using a "scandal" in newspapers of 1893 to try to justify a section on controvery would be bogus, because what was scandalous then often is not now, and if the event in question had anything to do with encyclopedic coverage of the subject, it would probably be mentioned in a more modern and secondary source (e.g. when the then-scandal has a major impact on the course of the subject's life). That said, this stuff also has long-term implications for the crap state of lot of our articles on present-day celebs, which tend toward being litanies of whatever the entertainment press has been saying about them lately, 90% or so of which is trivia of no lasting significance. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd say routine coverage that pops up in the short period before the event, and shortly after the event every year but not talked about again beyond this would fall under NOTNEWS. I am talking about something like DJ Fat Rabbit will be having Gingerbread theme party for Xmas 2023 at xy bar; and a follow up article that says how that party was. It is especially true when it is sourced to newspapers whose revenue source is from event hosts posting these ads. Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Generally speaking, should companies, such as record labels, studios have an exhaustive list of albums released through them? What about for artists/bands? Should publisher page have an exhaustive list of books? How about authors? Graywalls (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
A list of works made by the creative person or group (like a band or author) should be included, but typically not for the publisher, who does not have creative input to those works. Instead a publisher is more likely to have a list of bands or authors that are signed with them. Masem (t) 16:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
As long as we're talking a creative person or group with a lot of releases, usually there's a separate page for the full list of their works, and the selected works are based on local consensus though usually on those with critical praise. Masem (t) 01:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it could be any other way, given that what proportion of works should be selected and what the selection criteria should be will vary significantly depending on the individual person. For example the article about a prolific author who has multiple notable long series will probably mention at most 1 or 2 books per series, even if the third most notable book in series A got more critical praise than the most notable one in series B. In contrast the article for an author whose books are all stand-alone works will more likely take the most critically praised. However, if one work was significantly controversial then that one should be mentioned even if it got less praise than some others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
(e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election)
As this is a policy page, these are meant to be humorous or non-serious additions to break up this wall of text. No issues with these. Masem (t) 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
First, change WP in the NOTFORUM section to Wikipedia for consistency, and second, in the very last part, add the article "an" between "outcomes is not" and "official policy". Thanks! 102.40.79.94 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
To me it seems obvious that this isn’t the kind of thing “Wikipedia is not a guidebook” is intended to address. The purpose of this section is to explain what the organization does, not to orient tourists. Curious to hear other opinions. Prezbo (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The concerns there is more of WP:DUE issue as I feel that your removal of reliably sourced unflattering contents while embellishing what the organization wants to prominently feature. Graywalls (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like shifting rationales/moving goalposts. It’s a judgment call how much negative content is “due.” I have a feeling that if I left it up to you every article about a harm reduction org would be a hatchet job. However you’ll probably get what you want here because you’re more committed to Wikipedia than I am and no one else is interested in getting involved. All I can do is leave a bit of a record for future Wikipedia archaeologists. Prezbo (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I took a quick look. It is a content discussion with many factors in play. Your post here implies that there was a claimed violation of this policy and that such was the sole basis for the removal. Neither is the case and so I think that this is better handled on the talk page of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
There was in fact a claimed violation of this policy, fwiw. At least, that was how I read the linked edit summary. Prezbo (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Do we need to reword or better clarify NOT#NEWS in regards to overly detailed articles on current events?
I think we have a lot of problems in various other policies (like BLP and NPOV) which are arising from what I see is excessively detailed coverage of current events. For example, we still have hundreds of articles created covering COVID as it happened day-to-day based only on primary sources (newspapers), which now need massive trimming to be summaries of more milestone events (for example Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Texas but pretty much any country/state article in this mess) As another example, United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family is above an investigation that only started on Feb 8 and yet is 50k+ of prose. Note that this level of detail is probably more appropriate on Wikinews, just not on Wikipedia which is to summarize reliable sources. The prose of NOT#NEWS suggests one should not write this way, but obviously this is not coming into writing of these articles. I think part of the issue is that NOT#NEWS doesn't direct editors to write more in a summary style for news events, at least until we have far-removed secondary sources (like acadaemic works) that give us an idea to what level of detail is appropriate. For example, we do cover many of the battles in WWII in high detail but that's because in the half-century since that war, there's been hundreds of books that have focused on those details. That's not going to happen for these current event articles for at least a decade, so we really need more restrait in trying to keep these up to date. How we go about fixing that language, I don't immediately know, but we do need to do something here. — Masem (t) 23:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
When something like COVID hits policy goes out the Window and it's simply impossible to stop editors doing all the things they shouldn't. And AP2 is currently irredeemable. The underlying issue is that editors largely don't understand that news reporting is generally not a proper basis for writing encyclopedic content. I suspect many editors rather, think the opposite. Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
The process of turning current affairs into history obviously takes time. And when writing summaries, you have to start with the detail. In the case of COVID, the official summaries and postmortems are still being written -- see the UK COVID-19 Inquiry. It's obviously unrealistic to expect Wikipedia to wait until they are complete because, typically, they are never completed. For example, the JFK assassination is still ongoing news and we may never get a complete explanation.
"Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes."
I don't think we should wait until "complete" because that's not a definable endpoint. Serious measures to nip the problem in the bud might include:
Shut down ITN
Prohibit use of any source younger than 1 week old
Have anew breaking news template that says "Wikipedia by design does not cover breaking news and all information is at least 1 week old"
That sort of thing would cool the problem down. But this'll never happen because too many editors are heavily invested in making Wikipedia a Dashboard-of-now, rather than an encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Those changes would only solve the issue of coverage of things that are unclearly encyclopaedic or not encyclopaedic and lead to much worse outcomes for things are clearly encyclopaedic. Things that are clearly encyclopaedic are and should be covered from the moment reliable sources become available - what would be the benefit of waiting a week to cover the deaths of notable people, elections of national leaders or major earthquakes? Things that are clearly not encyclopaedic mostly aren't added, and those that are get reverted or deleted pretty quickly so there isn't any problem that needs solving. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but it should always be an up-to-date encyclopaedia, not an encyclopaedia of last week. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree there's a problem (there are editors using telegram channels as sources because there the only source for up to the minute details), but I don't think that's the solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
On one hand, I am broadly in favor of some manner of cutting down on the breaking-news crap; a lot of the worst and dumbest articles we have are the result of people mashing f5 on their rss feed for the 4 days something is in the news cycle and then forgetting about it in approx two seconds when told there is a new thing to get mad about (e.g. the famous, and ubiquitous, hour-by-hour proseline that is written in the current tense..... six years out of date).
I think the problem with the vast piles of covidcruft is not so much that Wikipedians were obsessed, but that society in general was obsessed. At the time, I recall there having been news articles written about the heroism of Wikipedia editors in documenting the pandemic. I imagine that a Wikipedia of 1943 would have had a lot of world-war cruft with multiple pages for every day of battles and movements and et cetera, and we would also have had to trim that at some later point. jp×g🗯️18:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
... and the social historians coming afterwards would have been greatly relieved that the trimmed material was still in the history rather than not having been written in the first place. Thincat (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I had not read this for a while and was just refreshing myself. The opening line says The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere. So based upon the above, as there is data recorded elsewhere, do we not need to bother about creating an encyclopedia at all? I know it's a flippant comment, but that is how it reads. Should we actually not reword this to say something like "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, however Wikipedia, as per encyclopedias in general, does not aim to contain every known piece of information on a subject." Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I may be being dense but I don't get there's a significant distinction. Wikipedia does aim to replicate everything from everywhere. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
"but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data" is the bit that doesn't make sense. So digital encyclopedias can't hold every bit of data? We just need to make it clearer. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
No encyclopedia aims to contain all information, but only a summary of information. It's a first step to look at if one wants more info on a topic but should never be the final one. — Masem (t) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
simply by saying we're an encyclopedia should implicitly cover that. Encyclopedias don't try to cover everything in general. Masem (t) 16:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I read it as: "Being "data" does not automatically mean it should be in Wikipedia". But further refining the first sentences (or this policy) might be a good thing. BTW by the most useful definitions, "information" does not mean data. By those definitions, thinning out data usually increases the information content. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I proposed the word information instead of data, as the Cambridge English Dictionary gives the description: Data - information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The "therefore" seems unsupported - it presumably means, as Masem says, "No encyclopedia aims to contain all information, but only a summary of information", but that is not glaringly obvious. Some rewording is probably a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
So how about: The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, however Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, does not aim to contain all information, but only a summary of the information on a subject.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It would be better to say 'summary of accepted knowledge' rather than 'information' to align with the goal stated later (and also with what encyclopedias are). Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Isn't that too limited? WP:NOT excludes some stuff, not just requires things to be summarised. I would suggest all that needs to be done to the existing text is to add something that makes it clear that "all" is meant literally there. Eg "does not aim to contain absolutely all data or expression" or underline or italicise "all". Something like that. DeCausa (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I think at this point it seems the original text opens (or can be seen to open) some cans of worms. Perhaps we should take it back to the metal and rebuild. What is the point of this text? isn't it just saying, in effect, just because Wikipedia has practically unlimited space doesn't mean you need to fill it, since an encyclopedia is selective by its nature. This sets up the context for WP:NOT as a policy (describing things which should be selected out). Bon courage (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I think that the fundamental differences between an enclyclopedia and the internet are:
It is in article format, for information that works in an article format.
Vetted and narrowed in many respects, which increases the informativeness and usefulness. Criteria are credibility, verifiability, likeliness of being useful to readers, quality of presentation, summarizatoin. And under "credibility" are things like accuracy and not degraded badly by bias and other agendas that are other than informing.
Some of these are covered by other policies. I think that this policy is focused on dealing with cases where there is legit data (which might be information in some contexts) that still doesn't belong in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Of those categories, I think the only ones relevant to this policy are summarisation and likeliness of being useful to readers:
Accuracy and verifiability (these are the same thing): WP:V
I view information as an answer to a question, and so is context sensitive. If I ask two credible people to tell me a good barber in Chicago and one gives me one phone number and the other Googles "barbers in Chicago" and gives me a list of 1,000, in that context the person who gave me the one phone number gave me more information. So for Wikipedia, the question is whether it answers questions which people would come to an enclyclopedia for. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
They gave you not just information but knowledge (assuming their recommendation is grounded & good). But the problem here is that this text can open up the whole debate about the ontology of data/information/knowledge/wisdom. Isn't the point being made a lot more simple: just because we're digital doesn't mean we need to be over-expansive. I suppose it's a counter to the argument one sometimes comes across "there's plenty of room on the servers, so no reason why my additions can't stand". I wonder now if we even need to be saying this? Bon courage (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the point is that while we theoretically could include everything (legal and verifiable) in practice we don't because there is consensus we shouldn't. The policy sets out the general types of content we don't include and why we don't include it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Very true. I think that this "foundation" conversation (including the reasons for the consensus that you refer to) is useful towards potential further tweaks on this policy. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This (differences between an enclyclopedia and the internet) is a good comment. I just wanted to draw attention to it. It describes the consensus well, I think. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Based on some of the conversation, how about this:
Although the amount of information Wikipedia can hold is practically unlimited, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and like all encyclopedias, it does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The sentence is getting pretty long. You could drop the first part and no information would be lost. Even shorter, you could say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.Shooterwalker (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I also think that leaving that first part off would be good. A second reason is that it a bit works against the main sentence. I encourage the effort on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
On second read, it is a little weird to describe what an encyclopedia is not without a little more about what an encyclopedia is. For brevity, I might suggest:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.
I think it helps editors to note the style of writing for an encyclopedia is, so they don't go down the rabbit hole with databases, archived news posts, and so on. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we should change and Shooterwalker's idea looks great. Let's make sure we have the details worked out (e.g. exactly what is being replaced?) and have a consensus here and just do it. It's not a policy change, just a wording tune-up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Shooterwalker's proposal looks good to me. To answer North8000's question, I'm assuming this is a change to the first bullet point of the "This page in a nutshell:" box. Some1 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
"[A] reference work in summary style" would be better; if the compound modifier is kept it would have to be "a summary-style reference work", per MOS:HYPHEN. "[A]ll the ... expression known on every subject" reads rather awkwardly. Assuming it's the first two sentences that would be replaced, I would suggest "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia – a reference work in summary style that does not aim to contain all known information or data, or everything that has been expressed on a subject." I would quite happily change "all known information or data" to "all knowledge", which is already in the opening lines. Ham II (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the point of 'The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited'. It may have meant something inthe past when encyclopaedias were books but it dosn't really say anything much today hen people use smartphones and discs hold hundred or thousands of gigabytes. It should be removed as a bit of dated chest thumping. NadVolum (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think I'm inclined to agree. I think this hearkens from an age where this new-fangled digital stuff was unfamiliar, and we needed to point out that people shouldn't go mad given the huge storage space on tap! Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree. It not only has no useful meaning, it confuses the issue and does harm to the point being made. North8000 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
"2028 U.S. presidential election" example in crystal ball section
I noticed the article 2028 U.S. presidential election is given as an example of an article that should exist, but it currently doesn't and requires an admin to create it. Perhaps it's a poor example and should be removed?
Meaning of directory in this context (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)
Directory is an ambiguous word, and the meaning varies with context. There are several Wikipedians, some with considerable edit counts, who do not appear to know the meaning of the word in this context, and it is not defined on the page. As an aid to encouraging people to develop a more complete understanding of the various meanings, I linked to the disambiguation page, but it would appear that Pabsoluterince does not consider this a suitable link, and reverted it as overlinking. I suggest that it is indeed a useful link, though not necessarily sufficient, and request any better ideas that will help people to refrain from misusing WP:NOTDIRECTORY as an argument for deletion where it is not relevant. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 12:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It is not unusual for the meaning of a pivotal term to not be explained. It is common to assume that because the meaning is obvious to oneself in the context of the original discussion, it will be obvious to others in the summary provided for general use. Interpretations of our guidance can be quite varied, and often lead to dispute. On the one hand it can be tedious to spell out the meaning unambiguously, and we get tl:dr as a result. There is also a danger to tying some things down too rigidly, as there can be other unforeseen consequences, and it can also be difficult to be sure of exactly where the borders of consensus lie, and if the closer specifies it in a way that too many participants disagree with, it will collapse. That said, I do think the intended meaning should be clear where we use it, and wherever it is found to be ambiguous enough to cause problems, meaning should be clarified. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 13:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Six examples are given, but they do not cover all the possibilities. They also only list some of the types of list article that are not wanted. There are types of list that we accept – Indexes, glossaries, bibliographies, discographies and outlines, for example, which are not directories by some definitions, but might be by others. In some ways a navigational aid such as a navbox could be considered a rather minimalist directory, and in some ways categories could be considered directories. I am reasonably confident that NOTDIRECTORY is not intended to be used as a pretext for eliminating those classes of content. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 13:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that linking to a directory of meanings of the word 'directory' resolves the ambiguity of its use in this sentence? Linking to a disambiguation page doesn't clarify the meaning of the word, it includes things like Directory (political) and Directory (OpenVMS command) which I think you'll agree is also not the meaning that we were going for in this sentence. I think within the context of the page, it is adequately elucidative, and that common sense and competence will prevail. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If you read my opening statement, you will see that I consider it an improvement on the current situation, not a complete fix. It would make it clear that there are more than one type of directory, though it would be more useful to define what kinds the guidance is referring to and what types it is not referring to. Common sense and competence are apparently not prevailing sufficiently, as editors are using NOTDIRECTORY as an argument to delete list articles which common sense and competence, as well as precedence and long term usage, suggest are not directories of the types we do not want. You are welcome to suggest better alternatives, perhaps you can come up with an actual solution. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The question is then, what kinds of articles are being removed through misunderstandings of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? And then does there need to be a specific caveat made for those articles. I still don't feel that linking directory is helpful to prevent misinterpretations. For example, we don't insert the dictionary definition of ambiguous words midway through the sentence, we expect the context to be sufficient. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A recent example was a claim that a Wikipedia:Index was a case of NOTDIRECTORY. The RfDAfD was unsuccessful, but it was a timesink and was proposed by an editor who should know better and supported by an editor who should know better, in spite of them being informed of the inappropriate use of the criteria. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 11:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, most of the WP:NOT entries were intended to curb stuff like people making articles for every street in every city in the world, or phonebook listings, or the like. jp×g🗯️07:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
That meaning is clear from the guidance already given. The problem arises when people choose to make a broader interpretation which may exceed the intended meaning. Competence is desirable, but not always apparent, and our personal competences vary between topics. It should not be necessary to waste time defending articles which should be obviously acceptable, because some people do not find it obvious, and may need to have it explicitly defined in simple, unambiguous language, to overcome their preconceptions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. It is understood that freely-licensed files should ideally be stored on Wikimedia Commons as per WP:NOTFILESTORAGE (a subsection of this policy page). Nevertheless, courtesy of a 2012 consensus, full-resolution images of copyrighted architecture from no-FoP countries can be hosted here, on the basis that English Wikipedia servers are in the U.S. and that only U.S. law should be respected here (not laws of all other countries).
I do not question the enwiki's FoP policy itself (even if the boilerplate template on top of WP:Freedom of panorama claims the practice is not a formal policy). What I am concerned is that there is a tendency to turn enwiki into a file storage for such unfree public buildings. At one point, NickW557 expressed some concern to an active Philippine contributor of local images of public buildings of the Philippines (which does not have FoP for anything) that the images may be running in violation of the Philippine law, despite enwiki only needing to respect U.S. law. (some off-topic: enwiki is the most-accessed by Filipinos among all Wikimedia websites, 9 out of 10 Wikimedia visitors or readers here visit enwiki, only a handful visit tlwiki and virtually none on all other Philippine language editions)
Again, I am not questioning the 2012 consensus (it is up to France-based ADAGP or the Philippine authorities and architects to question that), but rather it is more logical to only permit at least 3 or up to 5 local images per building, to avoid the tendency of using enwiki as a file storage site for unfree buildings. A simple search for Burj Khalifa images reveals we only have 3 full-resolution images of the tower, but I think that should be the upper limit. These three images should always be used on at least one article, to not run violating WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. We also have three images of Burj Al Arab, which IMO is still OK (IMO it becomes not OK if we have 6 or 10 images of the same building).
An alternative suggestion: WP:NOTFILESTORAGE should be added clarification to avoid some conflict with WP:Freedom of panorama. It is worth noting that the 2012 consensus (RfC) is still not an official policy as per the boilerplate template of WP:Freedom of panorama.
Is there any reason to think that file storage poses a significant burden, in terms of hosting costs or server performance or user experience among users of the site?
My understanding is that the answer to this question is "no", which would seem to imply that there is no worthwhile reason to go around torching photo albums (there are certainly instances, e.g. every article Epicgenius writes, in which it is helpful to have more than three illustrations of a building). jp×g🗯️08:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Tend to agree (and ultimately it is not practical for a project in one jurisdiction to attempt to comply with ever-changing different rules in every jurisdiction on earth). However, the OP has a point that we probably need some kind of limits on this. If someone uploads 100 images of the same building in a non-FoP country, that doesn't really seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. The idea that the "images should always be used on at least one article" might be workable, as long as it's within some sensible time-frame (i.e., do not create a dumb wikilawyer loophole by which someone can remove an image they don't like, then go have it deleted the same day before anyone else who care about it or the article has time to react; or see an image uploaded then immediately have it deleted before there's a chance to integrate it into an article). I don't really have a solid opinion on what a sensible timeframe would be. A week? A month? A year? — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG the question on file storage and its impact on Wikimedia's servers and other technical things can be answered perhaps on Meta wiki.
@SMcCandlish I assume there would be no concrete timeframe. The risk is there in which a typical user dislikes the current image and goes locally uploading his image of the same building that he touts as better. Then some FFD process starts on claim that the now-disused older image is no longer used. Perhaps FFD may resolve whether which image is more suited in an article, but in practice it is needless as a waste of users' time. I may suggest an upper limit of not more than 10 images of a same building, inclusive of the building in its final stage of construction. I already suspect we have more than 5 images of the Philippine Arena itself, many again from Patrickroque01. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The question about file storage is already answered at Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. The basic rule of thumb is that unless one of the devs directly says that we need to stop doing something (something very specific, not just "too much disk space") for performance reasons, then we should not worry about it.
Also, to make sure everyone has a clear idea of how much disk space we're talking about: If the devs ever say that we're short on disk space because of a couple hundred photos, I will personally mail a nickel to the office so that they can buy a few more gb disk space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I assume that the storage used for Wikipedia files and for Commons files comes out of the same budget, so would have the same total capacity, and would be allocated as needed, so using one or the other should not affect performance in any noticeable way. Multiple copies at multiple Wikipedias would be relatively inefficient, but unlikely to be a real problem. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Misuse of "Wikipedia is not a forum" on talk pages.
We should clarify that, although "not a forum" is an absolute in the articles, it applies on talk-pages for off topic content, but not for discussions about improving the article. I shall cite an example:
I read the article bats. I noticed that about disease-transmission to humans, it did not note that most disease-transmission to humans is because idiots harass bats. I was not certain how to fix it, so I asked for help on the talk-page.
On the talk-page, the topic was deleted citing "not a forum". This misapplication of "not a forum" holds back improving the article. Certainly, if I would have wrote in the article "idiots getting diseases from bats deserve it because they harass bats" that would be wrong, but is was a request on the talk-page about how to clarify that most disease-transmission is from bat-harassers.
Since I gave an example of when "not a forum" is not appropriate on talk-pages, I should give an example of when it is:
"Bats are cute and cuddly. Please reply in this thread about how much you love bats."
Since the above is clearly offtopic and cannot plausibly improve the article, it should be deleted. Its deletion would be appropriate use of "not a forum" on talk-pages.
TL;DR:
If a thread is on topic and aims to improve an article, it is allowable on talk-pages because it is constructive. If a thread is merely blabbering in a off topic nonconstructive way on the talk-page, it should be deleted under "not a forum". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.192.219 (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Obviously it's a judgement call, and I've seen completely forum-ish contributions defended with brave claims of "oh, obviously this was intended to promote discussion that would lead to article improvement". If an editor is deleting valid talk page contribtions on spurious grounds that is a behavioural problem to be raised with them, in the first instance. Bon courage (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree, ask the person who deleted the topic to actually explain why they did not consider it a proper talk page topic, without resorting to a shortcut. The best place to do this is on the talk page of the article, where other interested parties can give their opinions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the post in question that was removed citing "not a forum". Zefr (talk·contribs) removed it. While your post is a suggestion to change the article, it is mostly opinion. We would not add any of this per WP:OP, You could just post again, but start off with "The article needs a section on mistreatment of bats." Ultimately you will need to present reliable sources for anything added to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Information Hazards
This page doesnt include any discussion of how Wikipedia is to treat Innformation Hazards, or Information that directly effects either the reader, another person(s) or something else in the world: An example on current procedure is with rare plants such as "Hyperion", the tallest living tree, whose exact coordinates being available (or more easily accessible) would encourage vandalism/damage through tourism as has already been the case: Information here is directly a hazard, if only due to people acting on it.
Wikipedia does not typically censor itself in fear of actions of its readers (How much of chemistry, medicine and physics would need to be censored?), however it is also niave to believe that posting information is purely innocent, and that it has no consequence on the world.
Regarding Wikipedias refusal to be a "battleground" of politics, this too is niave if taken absolutely: Wikipedia *cannot* avoid politics of some sort, and indeed is choosing a specific political position in regards to censorship.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: however, there is no encyclopedia on earth free from the political context surrounding its creation, and other encyclopedias, especially historically, would have been expected to do their "due diligence" in regards to their expected political obligations. An encyclopedia that published accurate how-tos of bomb and poison creation for example would be quite taboo in most of the world, even if "purely informative".
We have an extremely comprehensive position, which is outlined at WP:NOTCENSORED -- which is that we do not do this. Your example -- that detailed instructions on how to make bombs would clearly be forbidden -- is specifically not true, as the article pipe bomb can demonstrate. Posting information is not a purely innocent act, but neither is obstructing it, and the latter has directly led to unspeakable evil on a number of occasions. jp×g🗯️08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Why is the exact location of the Hyperion tree repeatedly removed then? The other examples i know are also related to either ecology or things like doxxing individuals home addresses or names. How can doxxing be distinguished from free knowledge, by its already-accessability perhaps? 90.247.229.178 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it can be argued that due to the nature of proliferation, the sharing of information has caused just as much evil as censorship, if not more: Every time someone shares fentanyl synthesis methodology and equipment knowledge to their seller friends "proliferation" is done with evil intent and consequence... or is it? Since this "evil" as judgement depends already on political views: Censorship being evil, in an instance, is also reliant on political views. It cant be escaped. 90.247.229.178 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposed addition to WP:NOTFILESTORAGE
I propose NOTFILESTOAGE be amended to align more with Commons' INUSE policy, with the following change:
Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
to
Please only locally upload files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be moved to Commons unless they meet the deletion policy. The use of a small number of personal images on a user page is permitted as long as the user is or was an active participant. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
(differences in bold)
The main issue with the current NOTFILESTORAGE is that it is too narrow in scope. Someone could locally upload anything without a Wikipedia page, and NOTFILESTORAGE technically says "delete that" (though I admit this doesn't happen in practice). Something that is more common is that someone locally uploads (or uploaded in 2006) a user page image, then someone takes that to FFD. Depending on the closing admin, some may decide to "delete per WP:NOTFILESTORAGE" or "keep per c:COM:INUSE, move to Commons". This is not a theoretical problem, it has happened a few times, just search "INUSE" on the FFD archives. My proposal tries to eliminate this by recommending user page images be moved to Commons per above. Note there was a previous discussion on this matter, though that resulted in no consensus. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If we add this, it needs to be clear that it is a small number of freely licensed personal images can be uploaded... Masem (t) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear to me whether you intend to say that local (enwiki) uploads of a personal/user page images is acceptable, or if you intend to say that Commons uploads of personal/user page images is acceptable.
The comment about "freely licensed" has reminded me that there are risks associated with that. When this photo of a Wikipedia editor got transferred to Commons, it started appearing in advertisements. Perfectly legal, but maybe not what editors would really want to have happen to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Good point. Aside from that and other clarification suggestions, the general direction of this revision idea seems reasonable. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
All photos on Wikipedia are already freely licenced (otherwise they can't be uploaded here). Yes there is the argument that we could be giving more attention to the image by moving it to Commons and categorising it, but anyone could do that on any website since the license is free. The uploader takes that risk by uploading the image in the first place. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: That's not relevant here - fair use files have to adhere to WP:NFCC, and one of the conditions is that they have to be used in an article. User pages don't count here. Yes, there are files that are free in the US but not their source country and hence can't be transferred to Commons, but that is a small minority of files that can be ignored (also see above thread). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
You wrote "All photos on Wikipedia are already freely licenced (otherwise they can't be uploaded here)". I have corrected that information, for the sake of anyone who might read it later and not have as complete an understanding as you do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The word "locally" will create confusion. The rest is technically not bad, but cumbersome. .. mb "(e.g., personal photos (except photos of participants))"
It seems to me that in those isolated cases when they try to delete an image using NOTFILESTORAGE, you need to appeal to c:COM:EDUSE: if the file can be used for educational purposes, it should not be deleted. In cases where the file is nevertheless deleted, but you think that it shouldn’t, you should discuss this issue on the pages on file recovery (?)/dispute the result (?). — Ирука1319:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you think Language education in the United Kingdom#Broadcasting is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list?
In my opinion, this list is a clear violation of "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", as it has virtually no sources and very little context/explanation, but it seems like an IP editor has a different opinion (edit).
If you agree that this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, would it be a good idea to extend the list of the examples with something related to lists of works? Or just add another shortcut to the first example in addition to WP:NOTPLOT?
Bendegúz Ács (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
It looks like a clear case of IINFO to me. Regarding adding an example to the policy, I don't think that's necessary; it should be enough to cite IINFO and the meaning of the word 'indiscriminate'. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
In what way is the list indiscriminate? It is explicitly a list of language education topics in the UK, which discriminates between items on that topic and items not on that topic. It also subdivides (discriminates) the topic into subtopics on specific applications. Clearly further discrimination is possible, and may be desirable. but I do not see an absence of discrimination. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 04:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I've been getting NOTDIR and IINFO mixed up. NOTDIR seems to be applicable: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed and Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. In this case we appear to have a list of every TV and radio program on language education in the UK, at least up to the 1990s. So sure, it's discriminate, just as a list of all McDonald's restaurants in the UK is discriminate. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, now that I read WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and WP:LISTCRITERIA), it indeed seems more applicable here. However, I do find it somewhat hard to distinguish between these two: "indiscriminate collection of information" vs. "directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Perhaps the text could be updated to clarify the difference, for example: WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to lists, while WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to regular, paragraph-based content/prose. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
An "indiscriminate collection of information" would require the information to have no discernible logic to its inclusion, and a "directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed" is pure hyperbole and obviously literally impossible, so neither are really useful advice. Yet they exist. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 13:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
"For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them, but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list."
Case study on scope of NOTHOWTO: second opinion please?
There is a discussion at Talk:Diameter#Not manual on the scope of NOTHOWTO, as some experienced editors have rather divergent opinions on its scope. I would welcome a second opinion. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is Not Censored" needs to be changed or deleted
Even one of the co-founders of Wikipedia has pointed out it's clear bias, which is evident if you view the pages of anyone remotely political or any issue that is remotely political. It would be best to change the title to "What Wikipedia Censors" as the section is clearly misleading 2601:246:5A83:D090:8035:BFA6:C575:A041 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
You are referring to Larry Sanger, who has been spectacularly wrong about online encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia in particular for 22 years. He is hardly a reliable source. As for bias, Wikipedia is certainly biased in favor of summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about various topics. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I am also referring to a number of articles that are more smear pieces than neutral in tone. [[27]] Talk:It's_okay_to_be_white, [[28]], where there are clear and well articulated conversations in the chat that request a more neutral article, point out that it seems like a hit piece, and are rejected outright for the political slant.
That alone speaks to the extreme bias and an unwillingness to even change the articles for neutrality. And those are just three that I found, there are many more, it is endemic to nearly every right or center figure and not at all present in the other side, where most of the articles sing praise rather than neutrality.
With the clear divide, Wikipedia IS censored and does NOT have a neutral bias at all, but rather, as evident from the talk pages here, is an extremely bias source that actively blocks (again look at the talk pages) anyone that is not of the same bias as the mods here 2601:246:5A83:D090:9581:1645:55E8:7756 (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
In fact, even if you look at the discussions in talk, when presented with multiple sources from mainstream media on the center and right (seen the most in the logs of example one) you see the moderators picking a single left wing source rather than allowing for the article to be changed to a neutral tone, or edited out altogether, and in some instances you can see parts of articles that are favorable removed because the news articles from the NYP, Fox, the Daily Mail, SCNR, and many others are considered "unreliable" and "bias" for virtue of lacking a left wing bias to keep with the slanderous tone of the wikipedia article. Where as Politico, The Intercept, and The Hill in the talk section of articles are either accepted or rejected as invalid sources on the basis of if they support the bias in wikipedia or counter it in a request for a neutral tone.
It is not so easy. 10-15 years ago I used to edit articles on the Ukraine. Some of the Ukrainian nationalist editors accused me of being a Russian nationalist (one even called me a Putinist). Some of the Russian nationalist editors accused me of being a Ukrainian nationalist. They cannot both have been right.-- Toddy1(talk)01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
We reject Daily Mail and Fox and those other sources because they have shown to make false claims in their "factual news reporting" and stand by them (that is, they do no redact information if they they learn the information was wrong or falsified). They fail to meet our definition of reliable sources. This tends to be a problem with far-from-center right leaning sources, since they also tend to prescribe to things like medical misinformation and climate change denial. We do have sources that are right-leaning that we consider reliable, like the Wall Street Journal, but even there, their editorial board is known to be farther right than what they normally publish. We also have far-left sources that we do not consider reliable for the same problems as the far-right ones - they publish misinformation without any concern towards editorial oversight.
Perhaps we do need to state that we do not censor information when it is supported by reliable sources. Masem (t) 01:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
No, because we needn't play word games to appease strident ideologues by defining "censorship" in the broadest possible way. If we say any dynamic where someone doesn't get to what they may say otherwise as a form of censorship, then the idea is absurd. We would have to cherrypick what forms of censorship we ignore as to not render speech or decision making itself impossible, as some ideas or speech inherently exclude or dampen others, either directly or through accretion of a toxic culture. It would be inane to worry too much about this milieu of thought-terminating nonsense. Remsense诉01:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Remsense. Requiring sources isn't censorship. If someone wants to point out a reliable, verifiable fact has been omitted from Wikipedia, they can raise it at that article's talk page, or start an RFC for greater participation. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS WaPo, NYT, etc have all knowingly run false stories in the past, most notably Covington, where the full Youtube video exonerating Sandman of their claims was available instantly... and as where other news outlets got the story correct, they decided to double down by showing pictures of a blackout game taken years before he attended the University and claiming it was black face, along with claiming, from the same game, that he was making the KKK hand sign when it was a basketball game and it means 3 points. And then a whole slew of Trump quotes, where "Inject Bleach" was falsely reported when the correct quote was a question to Faucci "Is there a way we can disinfect the body of COVID"
However, those outlets that have also time and again knowingly ran false stories are accepted because they support the bias of the Admins that have clearly written articles from their political slant rather than presenting them in a neutral fashion as is wikipedia's policies. Your cherrypicking of sources as reliable there only further proves that Wikipedia censors for bias. Especially when requests (as proven in the link from the talk sections) to present the articles in a neutral fashion are dismissed to maintain the bias. 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that the OP chose "Wikipedia is not censored" to make the point that we have problematic bias in certain areas rather than seriously suggesting that we change "Wikipedia is not censored" which I think we should not change. And since there a zillion reasons, requirements and ways that something might be kept or removed from Wikipedia, we should not expand "Wikipedia is not censored" to list all zillion as caveats. On their actual point, I do think that we have systemic bias in certain areas to a problematic degree. I tend to not have the lofty and hard-to-define goal of neutrality on my worry list until it gets to the more extreme degree of hurting the informativeness of articles, which does sometimes happen. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed on your articulation, of course: unfortunately there's nothing in OP's formulation that's useful or actionable. Remsense诉22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
It can be addressed you can:
1) Allow for sources from all sides to be used on Wikipedia, thus allowing for people who argue for a neutral bias to make an acceptable argument. Right now your prohibition on sources from only one side of the alley despite the acceptable sources being guilty of the exact same things you have labeled right wing news of having. That would allow for the crafting of neutral articles and stop the censorship of non left-wing views, as well as prevent the creation of articles that serve as hit pieces.
2) Moderate the moderators. It seems that Wikipedia's main issue is the moderation, especially when looking at talk and seeing moderators shut down conversations that call for neutrality in favor of their own bias. If you take corrective action against moderators who do this, Wikipedia would be more of a public forum and see less censorship of opposing views while allowing neutrality.
Right now you have, as the Talk sections prove, a bias that is enforced that censors voices and creates hit pieces rather than neutral articles. The logs in the talk on "Trump" and "It's OK to be White" alone show several instances of moderators closing topics when they call for neutrality.
3) Actually enforce your neutrality policy. The reason why I can correctly say that Wikipedia censors is because it's not neutral, and as such it restricts center and right voices in the crafting of their articles with immunity.
It very much can be addressed... it just WON'T be addressed, and, honestly the attitude in this discussion alone seems to suggest that no attempt will be made for neutrality for lack of desire 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Your point #1 is still wrong. We do not restrict use of sources based on what side of the political spectrum they are on. We restrict them when they willfully publish false information or the like, showing a lack of being a reliable source. That most of those that we have blocked this way fall onto the far-right of the spectrum is not WP's choice, that's how far right media tends to operate. If right-leaning sources want to have more credibility on WP, they should strive to stick to publishing truthful information in a conservative light. Masem (t) 00:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Your request that we "Allow for sources from all sides to be used on Wikipedia" is an ill-defined, motherhood one that simply cannot be satisfied. Does "all sides" include views that the Earth is flat? HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Get people who agree with you to be taken more seriously, I guess. It's categorically not our problem that they're not published by university presses or what have you. Remsense诉00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
My point is not wrong, it is in this thread where it is pointed out that Fox and the Daily Mail are considered not reliable for running bad stories, just like the news sources that are considered reliable here, and I cited examples. It is not coincidental that the sources are on the right while left wing sources that have done the same thing, to a staggering extent of late, are considered "reliable."
It very much speaks to the assumption that the issue is that right and center sources are considered bias or unreliable by virtue of not having a left wing bias. It can EASILY be corrected, however, it seems to be ignored as correcting it would allow for more neutrality by eliminating the exclusivity of sources with a liberal bias.
And please note, unlike most of the moderators I see here in chat, I am not arguing for the rejection of a leftwing bias, but rather for the allowance of neutrality, a neutrality that is absent by virtue of censoring one side of the debate.... because I am sick of looking up people on Wikipedia only to see find articles that read like more of a smear piece than your average Taylor Lorenz article.
Frankly I had no idea who Stefan Molyneux was, came to Wikipedia, and found an article that seemed more disinformation than informative, went to his website linked, and found nothing that the article stated, and he wasn't the first person that I have searched only to find a hit piece. If you allow for an end to the bias by allowing for both sides to be heard, i wouldn't have to go through all of that effort to find out about someone that I wouldn't care about save for wanting to find out who a name was in a mention in an article smearing Noam Chomsky. That is a lot of effort all because Wikipedia won't allow for neutrality by virtue of censorship, because it restricts sources and views. Had it been neutral, I wouldn't have had to go through the effort because the article would have been written at least close enough to a 0 bias where I could trust it
We're simply not going to credulously let everyone through, sorry. We care too much for that. You should participate next time there's an RFC on the reliability a particular outlet, what else do you want? Other than to spill paragraphs repeating yourself rather than engaging with any specifics of how specific sources have been reviewed by editors. There have been discussions on all these sources you could be pointing to (the little numbers for each on WP:RSP, but that's seemingly too fragile a premise for you—potentially too falsifiable a premise? Remsense诉01:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't care about one talk page discussion. If you want Fox in on the same grounds as CNN, engage with the latest RfCs where we reviewed each. Remsense诉01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually I listed multiple talk page discussions, all with the same bias. I listed Jack Posobiac, Donald Trump, and It's OK to be White. And, I would wager that if I looked at more than just those three, the SOKAL Affair, Stefan Molyneux, Tim Pool, Joe Rogan, Graham Hancock, and the dozen or others I found, I am sure that EVERY politically divisive figure with an article that reads like a hit piece will have the same calls for neutrality in Talk, and the same rejections from the moderation in Wikipedia. 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
In fact, if you look at your bio, you are tagged as a talk page stalker, it seems you yourself have a reputation for involving yourself in Talk threads to push an agenda. And that is from Wikipedia itself, and exactly the behavior from the moderation here that I called out as a reason for the censorship. 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
And clearly you are proud of it, but given that you are actively defending censorship to push an agenda and wikipedia itself has you tagged as someone more concerned about pushing his bias over allowing for neutrality in the articles, it does make everything you say suspect.
Not to mention the fact that if you look at the logs from Talk in It's OK to be White, you have people making it very clear that they know it started as a 4Chan hoax to smear the left into denouncing an innocuous statement... but are going to to push a bias instead 2601:246:5A83:D090:191:9713:CB03:4678 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Are hurricane forecasts WP:CRYSTAL or are they covered under WP:V
An interesting question has come up in part from a reversion by @MarioProtIV. Basically, MarioProtIV stated the following is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL:
Also at 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, Jack Beven with the National Hurricane Center published an official forecast, which included the system reaching tropical cyclone strength in 36 hours, with a forecasted maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours.[1]
My argument for it not being a violation of Crystal, despite "predicting" the future, is WP:Verifiability's policy. The NHC is a reliable source for information and already, despite being named formally about 45 minutes ago, several RS media are already covering it and, more importantly, the potential impacts (i.e. the forecast). Examples include national-level sources like Fox Weather, CNN as well as regional-level RS like WDSU, KHOU, WKRG, WTXL and many more. All of these sources talk about the future or potential impacts. For example, an article from WGNO is even titled "First “Cone of Uncertainty” of the season with Potential Tropical Cyclone One. Here’s the latest."
So, my question is, does mentioning, in wiki-text similar to the highlighted one above, the official/RS-stated forecast of a hurricane, count as a CRYSTAL violation, or does it fall under the exceptions of the first CRYSTAL clause due to large-scale RS usage. Short TL;DR – Does WP:V trump WP:CRYSTAL if it is sourced by multiple (even-say dozens) of RS?The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I think it’s CRYSTAL because forecasts are just a prediction. Many, many times we’ve seen systems defy or not follow these forecasts because of forecasts. Who’s to say this system doesn’t form until it’s right on the coast or tonight? It’s best reserved for cases post-storm in which the intensity exceeded the predicted forecast intensity or location. Adding the above type of commentary while the storm is still active, is basically saying we’d have to do it for many advisories and change the expected location, which are all derived from a blend of computer models and the NHC’s thinking. Things change, and so I don’t think it’s necessary for Wikipedia to give a play by play for every single advisory. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
As a counter statement to "forecasts are just a prediction" - A prediction from a subject-expert in the field, which is widely published by secondary reliable sources. Whether things change would be irrelevant, since, factually, NHC published that forecast at this time. It is no different than recording the forecast of a tornado from the past. It was forecasted by NHC to be that strength at 4:00 PM on June 17. That statement cannot change whatsoever. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the first part, but I also stress that they are also predicting the future as well. We have generally refrained from including the contested info when a tropical cyclone is active (at least, in the Atlantic basin), because it’s subject to change. Hence why CRYSTAL comes into play here. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, if it is excluded because "it's subject to change", why are "current" watches/warning boxes included? Those change often as well. Those are sourced by the NHC posts (and respective RS), just the same as the NHC cone of uncertainty forecast is. The "it's subject to change" argument, respectfully, has 0 ground to stand on. By that logic, the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season#Watches and warnings, would also be a CRYSTAL violation. I don't believe it is, but there is no differences.
(1) Both [both being the forecast in the colored text above & watches/warnings] are published in the NHC advisories, and (2) both constantly change, every advisory.
The only real difference is, one would be a perm addition to Wiki-text while the other is entirely deleted after the storm. Like I said, there is no difference in terms of the CRYSTAL argument. Honestly, why does Wikipedia include things only temporarily (i.e. the watch/warning section). It is done for every active storm, and yet, it is deleted after the storm ends. Under the idea of it is subject to change, wouldn't that be a CRYSTAL violation?
As I stated, I do not believe either the text above nor the section are crystal violations (as of this moment in time), however, I think I just pointed out how shaky the ground is for your current reasoning that it is a crystal violation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, as a quick note, this question is not about whether it should or should not be included. Strictly just to see if the above statement would truly be a crystal violation or if it falls under Verifiability. That is the reason for the question, not about inclusion in an article or not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to run against WP:CRYSTAL. CRYSTAL talks about often poorly-sourced content characterizing uncertain events or speculation as if they are bound to happen, which invites further speculative content. This doesn't seem to be what's going on here. Instead, this appears to be an attributed description of a well-sourced and verifiable forecast per se from a noteworthy agency, which comports with WP:V. Care should be taken when describing forecasts: they can only be used to describe what was or is predicted, and never to describe what will (or in retrospect, did) happen. That said, there are definite tweaks that could be made here. While forecasters may have wide latitude to craft their forecasts as they so wish, specifically singling out Jack Beven seems undue. Sources generally refer to these forecasts as put out by the agency, not by the individual. Secondly, the hurricane center does not explicitly forecast peak intensities, so the mention of a predicted maximum intensity can probably be axed. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits)23:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Weather predictions are famously inaccurate. If you want to talk about a serious past event and the prior predictions and how they mattered, fine. But we are an encyclopedia. We don't document the future and don't want users to come here to know the future (where predictions constantly change). O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
“we don’t document the future” was surely meant to be “we should not document the future” in the same way that we say we don't misspell words but we all know that it happens (and should be corrected).
Why would obeying WP:V override WP:CRYSTALBALL ? If either one fails then it doesn't belong. CRYSTAL attempts to stop "facts" that have a high probability of changing - hurricanes often change from the prediction even when the prediction is by the excellent people at the weather bureaus. I would say that it also fails WP:RECENTISM and it would be better being recorded when the event is finished - or at least the part of the event under discussion is finished. Readers should be looking at the national weather sources and not WP for emergency weather advice. Stepho talk02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
But why is acknowledging what NHC forecasted a violation of CRYSTAL? For instance, on the 2013 Moore tornado we have "The Storm Prediction Center issued a tornado watch at 1:10 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT) early that afternoon for the eastern two-thirds of Oklahoma, northwestern Arkansas, and portions of north-central Texas." Why would saying, in short, "At 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours" be a violation of CRYSTAL, when the other statement clearly isn't? Both are in the past now. It isn't 4PM CDT on June 17th. That statement cannot change. NHC did issue that forecast. By arguing that it as a "high probability of changing", you are saying the fact they issued a forecast at 4PM CDT on June 17 can change. It cannot. That is what my argument is. The shear fact they issued a forecast isn't a CRYSTAL violation, since the fact they issued a forecast cannot be changed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I can make a prediction based on the writings of Nostradamus that there will be a volcano eruption in the US tomorrow. The fact that I made a prediction is true and will never change - therefore my prediction does not fail CRYSTAL.
Which is of course total crap. It's not the fact that I made a prediction, its about how reliable the prediction is and how long it is likely to remain valid. If, say, physicists tracked a comet heading directly for the Earth then it would have a high degree of reliability and we could predict it will (or very, very, very likely) hit the Earth because celestial mechanics is well understand and is just a calculation with only a few variables. But weather systems are highly complex, have literally millions of variables, are very, very hard to predict reliably and storm predictions change frequently as new data comes in. Stepho talk04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Based on what this thread is describing, the following would indeed violate CRYSTAL:
"At 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours.[2]At 10:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 50 mph (80 km/h) within 48 hours."[3]
Since weather forecasts are hard to be reliable, those two sentences would be a violation of CRYSTAL based on what you are saying? Correct? If yes, then that answers the original question. NHC published a new forecast (update #2) about an hour ago. So, the text, in theory, would read something like the highlighted statement I just typed out. I am honestly curious how the statement about 4:00 PM is a violation of CRYSTAL, since there is absolutely no denying that it is 100% true. Like it is not possible to deny that first sentence (or for that fact the 2nd sentence) is true. Both are, technically historical fact. So please, explain how historical facts are predicting the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
NHC made a prediction - that is a fact. The contents of that prediction is not a fact.
Just like my prediction of a volcano eruption. I made a prediction - that is fact. The contents of my prediction (a volcano erupting at that time/place) is total crap. My prediction violates CRYSTAL. So does NHC's prediction (including the 2 green sentences just before this response).
The fact that within 6 hours they changed it from 40 mph to 50 mph for the next 48 hours is an indication that weather predictions are not 100% accurate yet. In another 6 hours it might increase, or decrease, or its path might deviate, or die out completely. Stepho talk06:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, “the contents of that prediction is not a fact” is irrelevant. WP:VNT. Heck, right now Tornadoes of 2022 has factually inaccurate information, but it is verifiable. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. Their prediction is verifiable per tons of secondary RS. Saying their prediction, sourced by secondary RS, is perfectly in-line with Wikipedia’s policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)06:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Mu Why are we considering whether an encyclopedia should include verifiable statements of future prediction with a horizon of days to weeks? Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, question seems to be solved and discussion can be over. At no point should Wikipedia mention what a meteorological forecaster predicted or forecasted for, as it is a violation of CRYSTAL. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)06:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
That is definitely not the case. If the NHC anticipated strengthening to hurricane status and it doesn’t happen, that’s verifiable and legit info, as the very forecast itself could affect people’s actions they took to prepare. Similarly if the NHC thought it would stay a TS and failure to predict strengthening, like Hurricane Otis last year. The biggest thing with mentioning forecasts is whether it’s relevant to the narrative. If the NHC forecast strengthening to a TS, and that happened, a useful verifiable statement would be something like “The NHC anticipated strengthening due to a variety of environmental factors.” But if it’s just “The NHC predicted a peak of 40 mph this day, and 45 mph on the next advisory, then that’s trivial, as the minor difference wouldn’t have caused any change in outcome. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Forecasts of past events might occasionally be worth mentioning, when they caused a panic, are noted by others as being unusually accurate or unusually inaccurate, etc. I think forecasts of future events fall under WP:NOTNEWS. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with David. We must remember that our standards for notability exist as a fuzzy eco-system, and the more we try to establish blanket rules that apply to everything, the less well those rules work in concrete situations. In the case of hurricanes, there is an allowance for images of maps with the predicted path of a hurricane, and we do have a current list of tropical storm watches and warnings. However, I do not think that current prose of forecasts are helpful to readers (and probably fail NOTNEWS) as the information will quickly become dated and there is never just one forecast. Now, past forecasts may be notable as others have suggested. - Enos733 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Everything is about “future” events. So let me get this straight, are those sentences CRYSTAL violation or not? If they are, then are they a crystal violation in a month (i.e. after the storm has dissipated)? I still do not understand how mentioning an unchanging fact is a crystal violation. Those sentences cannot and will not change now or ever in terms of their content. But whatever. I guess mentioning the past on a current event is considered mentioning the future (somehow). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
My concern is that an editor might cherry pick which forecast to use in the prose - if the NOAA is predicting a named storm, but the UKMO is not, which one should be used? Now, this question could be generally resolved through normal editing, our project works better in talking about the past, or the current, rather than speculating. What we have in this case is a Potential Tropical Cyclone, and at this moment, includes current information about the system. The proposed addition does not add much to our understanding of the weather system, except that one forecaster thinks it could quickly become a named storm. - Enos733 (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
They might be unsuitable or suboptimal for other reasons, but forecasts like this are fine with respect to WP:CRYSTAL. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. Really, we're talking about predictions for the further unfolding of events that have already begun, which isn't fundamentally what WP:CRYSTAL addresses in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
You have asked us to assume that your way of enforcing the rules is "too" by the book. Given that assumption, my answer to your first question is "yes."
With regard to your second question, IAR says to ignore rules when they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Can you suggest a situation in which, for example, it would improve or maintain Wikipedia to violate copyright laws and subject the Foundation to being sued (putting Wikipedia at financial risk)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Can you suggest a situation in which, for example, it would improve or maintain Wikipedia to violate copyright laws and subject the Foundation to being sued (putting Wikipedia at financial risk)? Hmm... (Assuming your question is rhetorical,) Good point. I shouldn't have mentioned NFCC broadly. What about "contextual significance" criterion? It's interpreted variously, especially in FFD discussions, yet WP:NFC#CS is doing its best to clarify (the meaning and enforcement of) "contextual significance". —George Ho (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing that disputes over the contextual significance criterium are about whether proposed content will "significantly increase" or be "detrimental to" understanding. If the result of such a dispute is that copyrighted material is only marginally beneficial or, worse, detrimental then I don't see the "improving and maintaining Wikipedia" condition is present and IAR does not apply. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
be "detrimental to" understanding – Umm... I don't think "detrimental" means the content's presence would harm the project. Rather it refers to whether omitting, i.e. removing or deleting, the non-free content from an article or the whole project would harm readers' (contextual) understanding of a certain topic in question, i.e. article subject, like a person or a song. If omitting the NFC file or text doesn't harm what's already understood, then the said non-free content would automatically fail that criterion and fail to contextually signify the said topic. (BTW, I don't mean to make you feel bad, but "criterium" means bike race consisting of closed circuits. Criterion is a singular form of criteria; bacterium, bacteria.) George Ho (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I submit that content that is detrimental to understanding an article does not improve or maintain that article. And, if it does not improve or maintain the article, it does not improve or maintain Wikipedia. (Thanks for the BTW. It's good to learn things.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no danger whatsoever that Wikipedia will violate copyright laws and subject the Foundation to being sued (putting Wikipedia at financial risk). This is because nearly everything we do falls under fair use. Our rules go well beyond what is legally required. What it would mean though is that someone could not appropriate all or part of the Wikipedia for commercial use. Hawkeye7(discuss)04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
If they are decent-quality, freely-licensed photos of a thing with encyclopedic relevance, why should we care? How many kilobytes, or megabytes, of squabbling over whether images are "good enough" does it take before the arguments consume more space than the images in question? More importantly, how many hours of contributor time have to be spent arguing about this before it outstrips any conceivable cost of hosting the images? I would argue this point has already been reached, but I suppose it depends on how valuable editor-hours are. At any rate: it seems clear to me that having decent images is good, in general, for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia. For example, File:VillaSavoye3.jpg is currently not in use. But it is the only photo of this staircase that we have here (?) and deleting it would make it permanently impossible for us to use it for anything. Say someone is writing an article about trends in interior architecture, or about different types of spiral staircases. Should they be forbidden to use this image? What difference does it make? jp×g🗯️03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTFILESTORAGE rather clearly says "Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages" -- these files could be used in encyclopedia articles or project pages. I do not see any contradiction. jp×g🗯️04:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Same here, especially given how recurrent various "which picture(s) should we use?" disputations get. "Not used right this instant" does not equate to "unusable". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
If only we had hundreds of millions of dollars of donations coming in that could be spent on doing basic stuff like paying for hosting costs! jp×g🗯️03:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345, would you have fewer concerns if a WMF employee directly told you that you genuinely do not need to worry at all about twelve possibly unnecessary photos, or even about twelve thousand of them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing in technical aspect, I may not need to worry. But on the possible conflict between WP:NOTFILESTORAGE and WP:Freedom of panorama, that needs to be addressed in a concrete manner, not just confined to the wording that is open to multiple interpretations ("or could be used"). I will only accept the situation if WP:Freedom of panorama is made as a policy page, not a guidance page that states that it reflects the varying degrees of consensus and vetting (as stated on the top of the page). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)05:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. Since we run on a WP:Consensus basis, I don't think that any single editor actually has the ability to reject the situation. If it upsets you enough, I suppose you could quit editing, but you can't force the community to do things your way. The community can choose to leave the situation exactly like it is, even if you claim you "will only accept the situation" if it's done your way. Sometimes the community wants its policies to be open to multiple interpretations. I suspect that this is one of those times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
It's also too often the case than one particular editor gets it into their head that there's some kind of "policy conflict", but the community itself finds no such conflict, ergo there actually is not one. (That is, if the community's interpretation and implementation of policy doesn't result in a real problem, then the policy is not in fact broken, even if some particular individual can willfully misinterpret it in a way that for that specific person produces some kind of cognitive dissonance.) Ultimately it's simply not a community problem, but a personal matter. In my tenure, I've done a whole lot of policy-wording cleanup, but not every attempt to do so is successful, because sometimes the wording problem I think I see isn't one that others see. Such cases simply have to be let go, not clung to and recycled endlessly. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
In this case, I don't think anyone is engaging in willful misinterpretation. I think it could be resolved by changing it from its current form:
File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
to something like:
File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia. So long as each individual file could be used in an article (even if it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be used in an article), editors may upload an unlimited number of files."
Alternatively, we could specify a limit, e.g., "up to 100,000 files without seeking permission in advance, and an unlimited number with permission". (There are about 920,000 local files at the moment, so 100K would add 10% 'locally', and less than 0.01% globally.)
But as there is only one editor who worries that five or ten files might be too many, it would probably be WP:CREEPY to add such a sentence, even though it's true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The year in CRYSTAL is determined using a formula, I wonder if it doesn't always generate the correct date. 2028 would be a valid topic in 2024, but by convention only after the 2024 election. However the formula jumped from 2024 to 2028 at the beginning of 2024. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ever since the Wikipedia Group "The Guerilla Skeptics" became a known mainstream subject it shows that Wikipedia does not have a neutral stance and this group has gone out of its way to make changes to ridicule individuals and subjects. The problem is not the evidence, but the tone of their message towards the person or subject matter which is unbecoming of this website.
if we're going to follow "wikipedia is not" then that group needs to put down their fists and try to be neutral, and if not they should have their privileges be revoked. My apologies if this is not the right talk page, but I do not know where to go to address this issue. 2606:A000:9FC0:57:6937:10A7:B067:6E7B (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of this group. Ridicule would have no place on WP, but would need to be addressed at the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN/I). It's easier to address the neutrality of articles at their individual talk pages. But if it became systemic, it would help to provide multiple examples of articles, as evidence of a pattern. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Do we really have to come up with some lame cope every time someone complains about Wikipedia, instead of just answering the criticism? jp×g🗯️10:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! The Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (GSoW) co-ordinated editing ArbCom case went far beyond a few UFOlogists complaining about how their articles were handled (and was not really part of the main criticism GSoW editing). A lot of valid criticism there, though it's not clear what IP wants us to do exactly – I think most editors are aware that Wikipedia is not as neutral as we strive to be and suffers from systemic bias, but some specific examples to act upon would be helpful. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness. Passed 12 to 0 at 8:47 pm, 2 March 2022
Granted, this is not quite a heavenly reckoning, but it's not like they've been given the go-ahead to go hogwild and do whatever. jp×g🗯️10:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Are these posts eligible for removal as forum style posts?
This is worthwhile borderline territory to explore. I think some editors would strongly disagree with me here, but I do think "being rhetorically or lexically obnoxious" can be a factor when judging these things. As the goal is to limit disruption of the encyclopedia, a nasty tone can absolutely take a post from "this editor needed an editor, but oh well" into "simply useless for the present discussion" territory, in my view. I think the Ashoka post is worth removing: it does not actually engage with what it's replying to, and itself contains absolutely no actionable suggestions to improve the article, only bile. I feel the SIF post is roughly the same, as its only direct suggestion is an empty "yes I agree this is an issue", with the rest being a total non-sequitur. I think if someone is clearly just using a discussion as a springboard, it matters a bit less that some points that could theoretically be germane to improving the article's content. But I'm a bit of a grump. Remsense诉14:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Creation of product catalog under a new article
Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY #6, it specifically says author pages can have a list of their creative works, but publishers shouldn't have a book catalog in their page. I have noticed that Nonesuch Records discography was essentially created as a product catalog for the obscure record publisher/record label Nonesuch Records. I am not exactly familiar with SNG WP:NLIST, but I feel like this should not have been created. Graywalls (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
NOTNEWS
What's happened to the enforcement of WP:NOTNEWS? I look at a number of articles created in the wake of October 7 that pay no heed to this. The article is the Wikipedia version of a live blog of a news event. Is this not a main tenet of Wikipedia anymore? MaskedSinger (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
You may want to propose a change to NOTNEWS, so that it more clearly proscribes the types of articles that you are objecting to. As it stands, NOTNEWS has an overview and four bullets.
Overview: does not restrict what types of articles are forbidden, explicitly supports "stand-alone articles on significant current events"
Original reporting: not applicable here
News reports: the examples given are pretty limiting. Editors seeing "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities" are not likely to count major news events as falling into that bucket. News event are "events", but the policy links to WP:ROUTINE, which makes it clear the events in question are things like "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs", "sports matches, film premieres, press conferences", "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out", and "brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories". Deadly attacks or accidents would not appear to be included.
I don't have a bright idea. Maybe you could pull together a few articles you think should be proscribed by NOTNEWS and propose some language that would describe them narrowly? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd say a lot of deadly attacks or accidents do fit into "routine" news coverage, as they get the usual brief spurt of coverage in the immediate aftermath and then disappear entirely, the same way an average film premiere or the like would. Obviously the amount of coverage shifts, generally with how exceptional the incident is or how many casualties, so there's no hard line, but I think you have to do more than just robotically look at a list of sources, say "GNG pass" and move on. The Gaza war is the latest example, but there's plenty more, such as the absolute train wreck that is the exhaustive day-by-day coverage of Covid. I don't think NOTNEWS is really what needs revision, though, beyond pointing people to WP:NEVENTS and specifically WP:PERSISTENCE, which have much more useful and detailed information on why news stories alone are not inherently notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk11:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Wholly separate example, Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. Moved to that today, there are effectively only three paragraphs that are of "new" material in addition to quoting the letter (which we really don't need to do, it exists on commons and other sites), all which could be part of the Biden campaign. There was a AFD, but it closed no consensus, but my read of the keeps show little adherence to our purpose as an encyclopedia to summarize the news, not detail it to this level of coverage. This is just an example systematic of the problem we have we that we are writing for the now, and not for the 10yr or longer encyclopedic view, causing all of these excessively detailed articles to be created. --Masem (t) 04:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the concern more about too many too specific articles existing at all or merely that their content is too specific, or is it something else entirely? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't know that it's a big enough problem that we need to cover it in a policy, but I'll echo here what I said there. My personal inclination is that a number appearing in an OEIS entry is only worth mentioning if the sequence is "nice", "core" (of central importance to some topic), or "hard" (which often means that it comes from an unsolved problem). Because the source is reliable but intentionally rather indiscriminate, we should focus our attention on the subset of it that is marked as more interesting than the rest. Or, in other words, we should follow the source when it comes to emphasis. This is roughly going to be equivalent to mentioning properties that already have their own blue-link-able Wikipedia articles. I say "roughly" because it's not hard to imagine edge cases where an article could be written but hasn't yet because nobody has gotten around to it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to have a two-tiered standard, based on my read of that discussion.
Certain properties (e.g. parity, primality, triangularity) that are sufficiently well known and generally applicabile, are worth assuming they would be of interest for anyone reading an article on a specific number.
Otherwise, properties should only be noted if there is significant attestation in sources specifically regarding the number in question having said property.
Good to know people at Wikipedia have beaten me to it, but adding something here might be a quick little guideline to help people avoid the most egregious examples. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Additional journal verbiage
@CommonKnowledgeCreator: I don't think the additional verbiage about official journals et al. is necessary. Do other editors actually treat Wikipedia this way in your experience, and aren't existing guidelines sufficient for explaining why they shouldn't? In any case, the section title has been made much clunkier by the additions. Remsense ‥ 诉23:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about the journals but the added language regarding govt codes, etc. is something that can be a problem. I see people do laws or court cases that cite only the primary sources without considering the coverage of these in third party sources, and that's both a notability (WP:NOT) and an original research problem (in interpreting what laws or cases imply without aid of third party sources). Its reasonable to discuss. I don't think we need the additional language coveraging different journal types though. --Masem (t) 23:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd support to the new section about laws/etc, separately from the additional journal types language. There are hundreds of years of such laws and rulings, the vast majority of which won't be notable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the additional verbiage about official journals et al. is necessary. Do other editors actually treat Wikipedia this way in your experience, and aren't existing guidelines sufficient for explaining why they shouldn't? The short answer is "Yes, other editors do use Wikipedia in this way in my experience, and no, existing guidelines are apparently not sufficient for explaining this." I've encountered numeorus Wikipedia articles about bills proposed in the United States Congress during a particular session that were never enacted and may have never even been voted out of committee. All bill proposals during a session of Congress are included in the Congressional Record, which is the official journal of the United States Congress. The inclusion of proposed legislation that does not satisfy WP:N seems little different than people using Wikipedia as a soapbox (WP:SOAP), but these articles were created anyway.
I have also encountered many Wikipedia articles about laws, regulations, court cases, public policies, treaties, and other international agreements that do not appear to satisfy the WP:N policy, and it occurs to me that government gazettes, legal codes, and law report series are more analogous to manuals and academic journals than they are to repositories since repositories are generally indiscriminate collections of information while manuals, academic journals, government gazettes, legal codes, and law reports are not. This is why I'd argue that unless we make these guidelines the instructions I added into explicit policy, articles about these topics that do not satisfy WP:N will continue to be created. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Moxy, per your edit here, you have added a maintenance tag indicating that the section requires copyediting. What content in the section do you believe violates WP:COPYEDIT? Please state it here and I will address it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree. We simply do not need, and should not have, sections on absolutely everything Wikipedia is not. – Teratix₵12:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Moxy and Teratix, per the comments in this talk page discussion and WP:CREEP, the section was not added to deal with a hypothetical problem and the language was not too long. Additionally, other editors here have expressed support for the additional language so it is unclear to me how there was not a consensus for adding the additional instruction per WP:CON. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you need to rethink it as a section under the Not a Guide/Textbook section. It didn't need a whole separate section, but we should clearly have something that we aren't here to mirror govt documents (though where appropriate, that's a function Wikisource can do when copyright's not an issue); legislative and case laws should be documented through third party sources, not simply because the law exists. Masem (t) 13:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
What language specifically do you think should be removed and how should the title of the "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" be retitled for its inclusion? Use direct quotations please. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
This is just a long way to say articles on laws and regulations have to meet our notability standards – just like every other subject on Wikipedia. What's special about these topics that means we should single them out to reiterate this general guidance, in a policy that's already bloated as is? – Teratix₵01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
What is special about these topics is what has already been said in this discussion by myself and by others: articles are being created about these topics that do not satisfy the general notability guideline despite its existence, and that such articles will continue to be created unless instructions are included that explicitly direct editors to not do so—like the proscriptions against all of the other topics already included in the policy that were presumably added for the same reason.
As for the article size, the Page Size tool puts the article word count at 2,145 words, but this excludes the content in the numbered lists. When including that content, the word count of the current revision is 6,127 words. The shorter wording proposed here would add only 119 words. Per WP:SIZE, that is not a length where trimming or division of the article would be required or recommended. As such, the article would not be bloated by its inclusion and is not currently bloated. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Articles about non-notable subjects will get created. No matter how many rules you create and how much text you add to other pages that will not have been read by newbies. IMHO your proposal is superfluous. The Bannertalk02:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like what's needed is to actually enforce existing guidance on notability, rather than adding more.
WP:SIZE is a guideline relating to articles, not Wikipedia policies. 6000 words is, indeed, far too long for a policy, at least if we're actually expecting people to read it. – Teratix₵02:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Problems with this policy and trimming things back
Inspired by the above section, let's lay out some problems with this policy.
The page is a bit conceptually incoherent – obviously there's any number of things Wikipedia is not, so there's no clear criteria for when to add sections beyond "a consensus of editors felt it was important enough". But editors are more likely to be motivated to add new sections than to remove obsolete sections, so there's always going to be this tendency for the policy to be bigger than it needs to be.
Additionally, "things Wikipedia is not" is just a bit of a strange grouping, full stop. To pick three at random, why should our policies on censorship (NOTCENSORED), using Wikipedia for research (NOTLAB) and avoiding dictionary entries (NOTDICT) all come under the same policy? I don't think it's because they're a natural fit to be discussed together – I think it's because, at some point, someone came up with a way to conceptualise them in terms of "Wikipedia is not X" and added them here. So it's pure chance we have, say, the policy on password strength at Wikipedia:Password strength requirements instead of a sub-section here called NOTWEAKPASSWORD.
Related, there's a stupidly large number of redirects, anchors and shortcuts to various sections, I believe because editors are attracted to the WP:NOT[X] form and like to make redirects for every conceivably relevant value of X. Probably any individual example of these redirects is reasonable but their aggregate effect is a sort of "death by a thousand shortcuts" where the mass of hatnotes and shortcut boxes starts making the page too busy. Plus they make it more difficult to condense and merge points that really don't need to be separate, because you need to think about what to do with the shortcuts and anchors as well.
Anyway, upshot is I had a go at condensing things down a bit and knocked off a third of the page's total size just from trimming back the content section alone. I didn't set out to actually change the meaning of anything, just to merge similar points together and cut out redundancies.
Did I break a million anchors? Probably. Did I inadvertently overturn seven RfCs on subtle points of wording? Probably. Is it a net improvement? Yeah, once the kinks are ironed out, I think so. What do you think? – Teratix₵14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
If we were to start a new Wikipedia, I am sure that we would organize our policies differently. (Even if we wanted our policies to be basically the same.) But I'm against this even just on a procedural level. It creates a lot of conflict for very little gain. The usability/readability issue is mostly addressed by good anchors, and anything else can be accomplished with an essay about whichever point of NOT needs clarification. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I applaud the effort. It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy. There are two areas where if there were be a substantial rewrite there should be a bunch of careful work:
The linked not a dictionary has evolved a bit to recognize that terms can, are and should be a subject of coverage. The term often either creates the subject or creates a particular view of the subject.
The not a "collection of data" to reinforce that as encyclopedia, our approach is to cover things in enclyclopedia articles, including prose. This might help provide guidance on the areas where Wikipedia lacks guidance (on what is OK regarding list articles) and strengthing up guidance against 99% "stats only" articles.
It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy. Very fair! If it helps, maybe think of it not so much as "these are the exact point-by-point changes we need, the RfC opens tomorrow" but rather "whoa, we can make this a lot shorter and I don't even think we broke that much". – Teratix₵15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The many links to other essays, policies and guidelines etc. might be summarized in a navigation template. No clue if there already exists one. The Bannertalk16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
If take that approach, what it probably needs is a close review by that the bundle does not contain any substantive changes and that it really does tidy it up. And for them to state their findings. I took a first look for "does not contain any substantive changes". Maybe I missed where it was retained, but it looks like you took out the "but articles can sometimes be on a term tweak of the not a dictionary section. IMO this is substantive change, and as a sidebar, one which I'd oppose. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It's still there, just in a footnote. No problem with moving it back in the main text if that's preferable. Again, I haven't set out to make substantive changes, but I'm realistic: condensing down the page by a third will inevitably trample on some sensitive wording in a few places, even when that's not my intent. This is more like a proof of concept or an "artist's impression" of how much shorter this policy could be – not every detail will be faithful and accurate, but it demonstrates the core idea is workable. – Teratix₵03:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The other thing this page is is a trump card, used to shortcut discussion about whether something should be included in the encyclopedia. This is most obvious with NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. If I had one wish for how this page would be rewritten, it would be that each criterion should follow the same rules as WP:NEWCSD, most specifically #1, objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific. That is, if good faith editors can differ whether something meets the criterion or not, I believe it's insufficiently explicit to be a NOT policy element. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE is currently in the "Wikipedia is not a directory" section, stating "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." Not only that current programming schedules should be included on article about a TV station, but MOS:TVINTL also follows this guideline and other cable networks can allow current programming on their separate articles, but they should all need a reliable source to support it. If needed, can this guideline be slightly expanded? Sparkbean (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
We write for a 10yr view, so the "current programming schedule" is immediately outdated information. If there is historical aspects of the schedule to be kept, that's different, but no, we aren't going to include those current schedules. Masem (t) 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Curious to hear what others think about articles such as List of diplomatic missions in London and the compatibility with WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states that Wikipedia should not feature "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." At present, the List of diplomatic missions in London is by definition a White Pages style directory listing of embassies in London and their addresses and coordinates. There is no contextual information, no encyclopedic merit, and no secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
In a few places, the float-right shortcuts bump each other a sizeable distance to the left. I suggest adding {{-}}, a.k.a. {{clear}}, to avoid that. Thoughts? — Alien 3 3 314:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
A draft is meant as content for mainspace, so I see no reason why WP:NOT should not apply, though I would only apply it if the content is going so far off the rails, rather than a temporary problem that could be fixed. That specific MFD is basically nowhere close to being something like mainspace, so NOT is definitely fair game to apply. (Also consider that WP:NOT#WEBHOST applies to all space, not just mainspace, and that could also be argued for that as well) Masem (t) 04:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Crystal ball?
Could the sentence "According to ISTAT, Italy could lose almost one-tenth of its residents in the next 25 years, with the population set to decline to 54.4 million by 2050." be WP:CRYSTALBALL? JacktheBrown (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion currently going on related to the 2028 United States presidential election. WP:CRYSTAL has been mentioned multiple times as guiding a possible decision to keep the article. The guidance provided here, however, is less clear than one would hope. Here at WP:CRYSTAL it is stated that an article about a future event should not be included if nothing can be said about it that is verifiable and not original research. However WP:CRYSTAL resorts to the use of a mere arithmetic formula in providing examples, saying that a presidential election in four years merits an article whereas an election in twenty years does not. One might hope for a clearer explanation of how the policy is being applied. If we are going to use presidential elections as an example, what specifically is currently known about the 2028 United States presidential election that is not known about the 2044 United States presidential election that justifies including an article about the former but not the latter? One might hope for more guidance than just the number of years to go before the event. Dash77 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
For predictable events in the near future, some kind soul will always create an article. Even though the information is merely a summary of United States presidential election and some candidates and opinion polls that will be outdated almost immediately. The only useful information would be the date. But if we delete that article then some other kind soul will create it again. So we bow to the inevitable and allow them to keep the thing.
Where as the 2044 election is so far in the future that there is nothing that can be said about it. The date might change, the procedure might change completely, the US might collapse, the US might become a dictatorship, a nuclear war might destroy the eastern half of the US - my crystal ball is silent on this. Stepho talk01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
"In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."
Not meant to discourage brief, related, helpful comments. I don't think we need to adjust the item. Would reconsider if there's evidence of routine pushback against those brief tangents. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Mandruss, It was my impression from your activity. No clear cut diff for you.
Since you both are here, any misunderstanding can be definitively cleared up by saying whether or not you think I violated this policy for the two suggestion examples I gave in my opening message here. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Did I not commit a similar "sin" here? (While speaking to you!) If you help others improve their editing games, you help improve the article indirectly, therefore you're within the spirit of NOTFORUM. I don't see an issue here. ―Mandruss☎21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Re-reading your opening comment, I now understand what you're saying better. Yeah, I don't think that warrants any change at this point, per If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ―Mandruss☎22:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
What happened to it? It's not there now. I frankly don't remember it. From the context, it looks more like a comment on editors responding once again to a political tirade not back up by RS. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖13:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: One could interpret that to mean: one should not go to an ATP to seek technical assistance, my clue being the words "help desk". I'm not sure but I don't think that's the scenario we're talking about. ―Mandruss☎15:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options.
The policy currently says that content violating the Law of the United States will be removed. But it seems content may also be removed at the behest of government organs (eg courts) of other countries too? VR(Please ping on reply)07:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Then should a sentence or two about Office actions be added to WP to clarify our policy on censorship? VR(Please ping on reply)08:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
