Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Off-hand criticism of living people in non-article space

Should the policy on living people, WP:BLP, be clarified to allow off-hand criticism of living people on Talk pages?

Currently, there is some dissent about an editor saying something like "Kim Jong-il is corrupt." or "Bill O'Reilly is a pathetic excuse for journalist." on a Talk page. Some people, perhaps a majority, think it is a blockable offense. Others think it is not. Some think WP:BLP clearly prohibits even casual criticism of living people in random conversation, others do not.

The relevant policy excerpt re non-article space is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed..." [1].

A few points...

• Should Wikipedia be a forum for criticism of living people? Of course not. An entire page created in "userspace" in order to criticise someone would be different. The topic here is any off-hand criticism. Wikipedia is not a forum for jokes, idle banter, pictures of one's self and pets on one's own user page, etc. Yet, their occurence doesn't violate WP:FORUM.
• Some background here [2], however....
• This discussion is for this topic, purely. Please avoid dragging article/personality disputes from one place to another.

Feel like voting? Support = allow minor or off-hand criticism of living people in non-article space, as long as it is not defamation. Oppose = editors should never be alllowed to criticize a living person, unless directly related to work on an article.Mindbunny (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Common sense. The purpose of the policy is to prevent defamation (and attacks on people in article space), hence the empahsis on sourcing. Opinions that lack factual implications are not defmatory. Logically, the policy's syntax prohibits comments that are unsourced AND unrelated to content choices, and editors' opinions are clearly sourced to themselves.Mindbunny (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support – IIRC, Google doesn't index pages from the Talk namespace. People are entitled to opinions, and victims of libel are free to communicate their concerns to Oversighters. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Addendum – I would like everyone to remind everyone about the differences between an article and a talk page. Articles are presented as fact, and they receive a very high ranking on Google. That is why BLP exists. Talk pages, on the other hand, don't claim that the information presented on them is fact, and they aren't indexed by Google. Talk pages are for discussions. The difference between editing an article and adding a comment to a talk page is the different between publishing a newspaper or book and writing a letter or complaint. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Actually, this has been discussed before, and people agreed that talk pages are a place for discussion with the freedom to express his/her thoughts as long as they are not clearly contentious, in which case other regulatory means become effective, e.g., handling of vandalism. Nageh (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re "this has been discussed before..." Can you prvide a link to the previous discussion?Mindbunny (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm ambivalent about this. I'm reluctant to increase the risk of edit wars and AfDs, but I don't think nasty comments about living (or recently living) people belong on discussion pages, even if less-than-libelous. Some of the comments on Talk:Christo and Jeanne-Claude seemed unhelpful. I'm not interested in the artistic tastes of some random, sarcastic, editor, especially when they explicitly ridicule both the artist and any reader that might find the works being attacked artistic; and I think that insulting comments about the physical appearance of an old woman (or anybody else), even if she is a public figure, are unsuitable. I would like them to be clearly contrary to guidelines, so that any editor could freely delete them. I think that comments regarding politicians and convicted criminals could be exceptions.--Hjal (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Depends what you mean by "criticism". We allow limited expressions of personal opinions in talk space, but within limits and subject to it being relevant to the improvement of articles. Anything that could reasonably be considered libellous is not permitted, regardless of namespace; if that's the policy change you're angling for, you're not going to get it, since even should it pass the WMF will overrule you. – iridescent 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Individual editor's opinions of the subject of an article are not useful to the improvement of those articles. We should be using the talk pages to try to work together to improve articles. When editors start giving there personal opinion of the subject of the article it creates friction between them and editors with differing opinions. This friction will hinder the cooperative nature of the project. GB fan (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem this is trying to solve? Seems to me that we haven't had a spate of people being blocked for posting "I don't particularly like George Bush" or "My own opinion is that Obama is the worst president ever". There is a danger that any loosening of the policy will move us towards being a forum, and we do have an issue with that. So, what's the real, practical, gain? As long as admins use common sense and don't go jumping on harmless (but off-topic) asides in userspace, I'm not seeing it. Any user who is deliberately wanting to create a policy space to allow an increase in people posting opinions on living people, is heading in the wrong direction. Don't jump on people for slightly off-topic opining but, on the other hand, don't encourage it either.--Scott Mac 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the question isn't whether we are allowed to libel anyone. That's non-negotiable. Libel/defamation/slander refer to factual claims, or opinions with factual implications. "Bill O'Reilly is a crappy journalist" does not claim or imply a fact. This topic is about statements of opinion. Such opinions may not be useful to improving Wikipedia, that doesn't mean anything should be banned (see point about WP:FORUM above). All sorts of off-hand comments are allowed, even though they aren't particularly useful. In my view, this is mostly about recognizing the nature of any social enterprise: people share ideas, opinions, pictures of their pet cats, and so on. As long as the place doesn't become a forum for such things, they should be allowed. You can have a picture of your cat on your desk at work, even though work is not a forum for pictures of your cat. You can discuss your cat at the water cooler. And so on. The question is merely whether opinions about living people (such as mine that Bill O'Reilly is a jerk) fall into the same category. (Also, this isn't just about Article/Talk, it concerns any non-article space including your own Talk page, RFCs, and so on.) Mindbunny (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the problem. Has anyone been blocked for posting the odd opinion in userspace. Oh and "x is a jerk" isn't an opinion, it is simply invective.--Scott Mac 20:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The only case I can think of that comes close—and as you know, I've spent a lot of time in the murkier corners of the BLP policy—is Herostratus's admin recall, triggered by his making potentially defamatory comments about the subject in an AFD regarding a living person. There have certainly been people blocked for using userspace to post hate speech and libel, but I don't think that's what this discussion is concerned with. (I suspect this all has something to do with this discussion, currently being spammed by Mindbunny at a talkpage near you.) – iridescent 21:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there an arbitration case (along with an archived AN/I thread), or at least a request for one, involving User:Mindbunny and this issue?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This was linked above but here it is again, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive695#Mindbunny making attacks GB fan (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have said, "aside from the recent Mindbunny case". That was slightly different, as it was unambiguously defamatory and not the "I don't like the guy" type of thing being discussed here. If this is what Mindbunny had in mind when posting here, then I'd strongly suggest he take my comments (and the others') on that case seriously; BLP is a non-negotiable policy and MB is very much on their last life. – iridescent 21:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what Mindbunny linked as background in the original post. GB fan (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that 1) there is no agreement on what the policy says, regarding off-hand criticism in non-article space, 2) there is no agreement on what it should say. The most recent trigger was Sandstein's block of an editor (not me) for saying Lara Logan has "degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards." [3] The comment was made on Sandstein's Talk page, in response to his criticism about editing of the article Lara Logan.[4].
• Please discuss the policy, not editors. I avoided going into detail about recent conflicts precisely to avoid the discussion degenerating into an argument about editors. However, iridescent's comment that I made "unambiguously defamatory" comments is wrong, so perhaps my comment in that case should be used as an example: "Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt." That is unambiguously not defamation (nor is it a comment restricted to me). Mindbunny (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So Mindbunny your comments are not personal attacks and is just your opinion about the person and is OK, but this is a personal attack? GB fan (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither is a BLP violation. If Robert Mugabe wants to file a Wikiettiquete complaint about me, I suppose I couldn't object. He could not, however, sue me. (Please keep the discussion on the topic of the policy. Let's hear what others have to say, rather than demanding that I defend everything I've said in the last two weeks.) Mindbunny (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is on topic, you are the one proposing that negative things can be said about living people. I am not demanding you defend anything I am trying to understand what you think is right and what you think is wrong. You have no problem saying negative things about living people but when someone gives their opinion about you it is a personal attack. I am trying to figure out where you draw the line because it is not clear. GB fan (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's right (or wrong) to give negative opinions about living people. I think it isn't, and shouldn't be, a BLP-violation. Mindbunny (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. GB fan (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It's something you see all the time anyway. I think that there should be some leniency for slightly defamatory remarks against people widely agreed to be jerks and who are unlikely to complain (like I was doing on Libya Civil War). Then again, you have the problem there of who falls into that category and who thinks they're a jerk exactly (one man's jerk is another man's tough guy)? Could let in a lot of people saying rude stuff about Obama and all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Be aware Mindbunny is over at BLPNB arguing exactly the opposite (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate). There he is arguing that remarks about other users in userspace ARE serious BLP violations . You are being played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 June 2011

This is getting ridiculous. Scott Mac has become incredibly hostile and personal about this. The topic here is not about personal attacks on users--that is a violation of a rule other than WP:BLP. Bill O'Reilly is not an editor, so saying he's a crappy journalist would not be a violation of "no personal attacks" anyway. Nor is it, in my opinion, a violation of BLP. That's the topic. I apologize if I complained about SlimVirgin's page in the wrong place; I was advised to nominate it for dleetion, but couldn't because it is protected. That is all. Please discuss the topic, not editors. Mindbunny (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• - This is not even a possible discussion point. Talk pages here are not forums to slag off living people you don't like and anyone that supports that is in the wrong place as the en wikipedia project is maturing away from any of that, in fact it already has. I will say now, even if one hundred users support this here it is not happening ever, loosening of the WP:BLP guidelines and WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:Talk page guidelines that protect our living subjects is not an option at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The rabbit aside, I think the idea is not just a comment, but an off-hand remark in a posting that is mostly related to improving the article. like -stuff related to finding RSs- -reply to other editor in that regard- -comment on corruption like in the OP-. Not just completely talking about the guy's corruption. That's the idea behind offhand. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• - It is not even possible to dismiss this as a possible discussion point. Talk pages here are not just dry recitations of facts with a subtle undercurrent of plausibly-deniable invective, and anyone who supports that is in the wrong place as the en wikipedia project already has decided to leave that to the article namespace. I will say now, that even if one MILLION users oppose this here it is still going to happen forever. Extending WP:BLP to content that is non-defamatory is not an option at all. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• This is a good example of overestimating our importance and significance, especially when it comes to extremely high-profile people. For instance, Eliot Spitzer's reputation won't be affected by one offhand comment on a Wikipedia talkpage about the callgirl scandal, and the utter absurdity of Herostratus' recall showed that something has to give; the person in that case met the definition of what Herostratus called him (a homophobic bigot; read the talkpage history of his recall RfA for context). I don't want talkpages to turn into discussion fora, but people shouldn't be so concerned about one or two asides during a content dispute. What The Artist said is different; however, I see no reason to get overly concerned about the types of comments I mentioned above. We are only a website, consisting of a group of people who all have different opinions, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. Trying to sterilize our talkpages will only make it a more repressive and less fun environment to contribute in; and really, we're here because we enjoy it. We can't and shouldn't suck all the pleasure out of contributing here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is another misunderstanding in a series of failures arising from a talk page comment by another user which claimed that a named person had "degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards" (and that comment was part of a campaign relating to material in the person's BLP). The issue led to the other editor being blocked, and the subsequent user discussion included support for the user by Mindbunny. Of course isolated comments like "Obama is crazy" will not lead to sanctions, but this proposal was based on something that really was a BLP issue (and the block was not due to that single talk page comment). Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An isolated comment like "Obama is crazy." is a good example of what this is about. It is a contentious, negative opinion about a living person, and not likely to be part of improving an article. It is, according to many editors, such as off2riorob (above), something that is a BLP violation, and blockable. I'm not sure what your interpretation of the block of "The Artist" for his Lara Logan remark is based on. The block was for that single comment--the blocking admin gave no other reason, nor did anyone else mention another reason. Again, this proposal is for off-hand comments about living people; they really are considered blockable by some BLP purists and admins, and the block of "That Artist" was such an example. Mindbunny (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This proposal is vague, but a good first step. Most of the examples being bandied about are opinions statements, which are never BLP violations. In article-space, they're POV issues; in talkland, maybe WP:FORUM violations. BLP has become a weapon for bullies, and it's time to narrow the scope. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Support. Nowadays there are too many BLP fascists present who run around whining about even the most trivial technical BLP violation on completely irrelevant talk pages. Something should be written into policy to discourage this kind of behavior. NickCT (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary, concrete wording

Among explicit votes, I see 5 supports and 1 oppose. Inferring what seems like the obvious, I see 6 supports (add Blade of Northern Lights) and 2 opposes (add Off2riorob), So, let's work on specific wording to add to WP:BLP. For starters, I propose something like:

• "This policy is not meant to apply to off-hand comments, that are clearly an editor's opinion without factual implication, made in Talk." Any thoughts or imrpovements? Mindbunny (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps add some reference to WP:NOTAFORUM to it. Users shouldn't see this change as an invitation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That might help address the main concern. It seems to me "off-hand" makes that clear, but it helps to repeat key points. Mindbunny (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the interpretation of "off hand comments" ? This is a meaningless discussion and WP:not a forum overrides it anyway. What is this meant to mean - " an editor's opinion without factual implication" ?- please show some examples of what you think this policy alteration would allow. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

An example of a comment without factual implication is "Glenn Beck is a bad man." An example of an comment with a factual implication is "Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude, Off2riorob is playing you. That was bait to try to shut this conversation down. I redacted your example; there are plenty of them already given in discussion. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm unredacted it. Haven't you heard of GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com? It's an Internet joke. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I believe it should at least direct users to WP:UP#POLEMIC, which states (among other things), "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason." This is under the "Excessive unrelated content" section, so I think it's important to make a distinction between a user who spouts off once in a blue moon and one who just can't stop, and that those whose lapses are occasional are encouraged to migrate the "offending" opinions off of the page in question relatively quickly (or immediately, if it's another user's talkpage and that user has requested its removal). I think anything that isn't covered explicitly under WP:BLP should be run through this filter at the very least.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems like the same basic idea as WP:FORUM. Mindbunny (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think some background is missing here. This entire discussion is a virtually pointless waste of time, arising following a recent request for arbitration in which Mindbunny came very close to being topic-banned from commenting about any living person across the whole project—a proposal I may renew if he wastes much more of the community's time in this vein. There is no real dispute or controversy that exists concerning "offhand comments about living persons on talkpages"; this is an entirely made-up pseudo-controversy, which is distracting attention from serious BLP issues of an entirely greater nature. I object to any modification of the policy as a result of this inanely-motivated discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bothering objecting to this, because it ain't going to happen. Brad is quite right - this is a non-starter.--Scott Mac 20:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Those who can't attack ideas, attack people. It's sort of silly to dismiss the opinions of everyone who has participated in this discussion because of me. It's rude to the other editors. The only motive in asking "What does the community think of this?" is to find out what the community thinks. Now, apparently, Newyorkbrad is making threats to ban me for asking that question. Discuss the substance, and if you can't, refrain from threats. Mindbunny (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed the ideas behind this proposal, back when I was assuming good faith about your motivations, rather comprehensively (to the point of being teased about overlength by the other arbitrators) when I responded to your request for arbitration. (For those interested, see [5] for the complete discussion.) You don't want to listen to me, or apparently to anyone else; your propagation of this non-issue all across project space has become seriously disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Brad, please address the issue and not the person. As can been seen from the discussion above, others see an issue here. If you want to address the person, please stick with a reasonable forum for doing so. RfC/U being the obvious one. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea is a non-starter, goes against the ideals of our core policies and whoever came up with or supported such a thing should receive the mother of all troutings :) If someone is expressly making statements about their views on living person on talk pages they should be encouraged to find something constructive to do. And individuals personal view is, fairly obviously, fringe - and self-published. If that view is negative it is a BLP issue, if it is glowing then it is a BLP/NPOV/SOAPBOX issue. And should be dealt with accordingly. If an editor fails to understand why they should focus on content and quit telling everyone how great/bad X is - and continues to say these things - they should be blocked for WP:POINT violations. This is just forum shopping of a new form of that POINT violation which you were blocked for Mindbunny. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, anything negative is simply not a BLP issue. Stuff about "fringe" and "self-published" has nothing to do with Talk pages. All the opinions on this page are self-published. Most of the rest of your concern is addressed by the point that we are talking about the offhand comments that people sometimes make. There is this repeated objection to using Wikipedia as a forum, an objection to repeated criticism of living people. The wording-tweak is doesn't allow use of W. as a forum or for any agenda regarding a BLP. It is simply a matter of common sense and custom--we do not and should not punish offhand, isolated comments. And policy should reflect that. Mindbunny (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the substance of the question. The main concern has been to maintain the prohibition against using W. as a forum for criticizing people. The term "offhand" indicates that, but there's a disre for more empahsis. So, proposed wording:

• "This policy is not meant to apply to off-hand comments, that are clearly an editor's opinion without factual implication; isolated opinions that don't rise to level of WP:FORUM are slight enough to be allowed some leeway."

Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this policy for BLP in non-article space. Please do not negatively comment on editors (that violates AGF and, to some extent, it violates some of the policies being discussed here). Mindbunny (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Such things are usually overlooked, and in some cases the editor reminded not to do stuff like that. I fail to see why it should be enshrined in policy (per WP:CREEP) or why a get-out clause should be in place for those who want to express their views. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of what makes this frustrating is that we are told contradictions: 1) "Such things are usually overlooked" and nobody is going to block for "Obama is crazy", yet 2) Allowing "such things" is impossible, and this is an ironclad, non-negotiable, non-starter with no exceptions. An admin was de-adminned over it. The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous was blocked over it, even when it was part of work on an article. I don't think WP:CREEP applies. It says "It is usually better for a policy or guideline to be too lax than too strict....Gratuitous requirements should therefore be removed. " Its main concern is excessive requirements, not allowances. The proposed text is one or two sentences allowing more laxness. If anything, CREEP suggests we should lighten up [6]. The rule as it stands doesn't reflect a consensus and is going to blindside editors with its inconsistent enforcement. Mindbunny (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thinking more about ErrantX's concern about WP:CREEP.... it occurs to me that no new wording needs to be added. The existing wording, in the section on non-article space, can just be fine tuned. Currently it reads "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed..." Really, the hub of the issue is "contentious." Anytime the basis for removing something is that it is controversial, there are going to be problems of censorship. The mere expression of a contentious opinion shouldn't be a basis for blocking anything. So, maybe this is a simpler solution:

• "Material that is likely to be harmful and that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed...".

This is already in the non-article space section, on the BLP page, so I don't think those specifics need to be in the wording. This is a rough draft. Please contribute constructively, such as by suggesting improvements....Mindbunny (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The above post would seem to indicate a misconception that clear, consistent, effective policy is a worthwhile goal. Really, it is ephemeral. See Gödel's completeness theorem. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• note - User:Mindbunny, the proposer of this desired alteration to the WP:BLP policy has been indefinitely blocked for Disruptive editing: WP:POINT, WP:BATTLE. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that it's not 2006 any more. Continuing to actively try to maintain our policies and guidelines in a state of incompleteness seems to do more damage then good now ("damage" being time and effort spent arguing over things like this). My feeling is that Wikipedia has turned a corner so that we're working more at quality issues now. That change requires us to work more closely together, more often, which is a situation where having clear, consistent, effective policy is a worthwhile goal. User:Mindbunny may have created more problems then were necessary to get there, but the cogent analysis of the issue presented above shows me that there's actually an issue here, to some extent.

Besides that, the victory lap being taken aver Mindbunny being blocked again is... unseemly, to say the least.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is totally relevant to this discussion that the proposer of this policy change is/has been indefinitely blocked. My message was meant only as informative and relevant to the proposal and to users involved in the thread. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not out to get anyone here, or anything like that. It's just... how is the proposal affected at all by the proposer being blocked? Is the proposal itself disruptive, in your view? It seems to have at least some support to varying degrees above, so I'm not sure how you can argue that the proposal itself is somehow disruptive. Besides that, I know that yourself and a few others have been... erm, "involved" with User:Mindbunny for some time. Granted, that's largely his own fault for egging you guys on, but that's where the appearance of the above post seeming like a victory lap is coming from.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in my view - disruptive user and his valueless pointy proposal. I added the details of the users indefinite edit restriction to close the thread down. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you can admit it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, people above have supported it, so it can't be completely valueless. I'm no Buddhist (indeed, I tend more towards Carvaka and Mohism), but the concept of taking the Middle Way has its appeals here. Instead of turning talkpages into fora (as one extreme would have it) or barring any and all offhand comments everywhere (as the other would), there's a balance to be struck. An attempt to do so isn't inherently disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some users that support complete free speech at on wikipedia and some users that oppose BLP but that doesn't mean we are going to get rid of it or weaken it in any way. BLP is one of the main protectors of our living subjects and protector of the project itself, for legal problems and a protector or our reputation as a responsible project. The issue is already covered in WP:not forum and the whole issue is a non event. Feel free to take over the reins if you feel his proposal has value. Off2riorob (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Even though I know the support/oppose votings already over, I would just like to say that I think this is a misuse of talk pages. Talk pages should be used for idea's of improvement or suggestions for the article, not to express one's opinion on the person or subject. Sorry, I just had to get that out, continue on.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would just like to make an example that shows the sort of statement where I believe users should not be punished for mentioning off-hand. A while back, while voting in an AfD (I voted Keep), I included in my comment the statement that, "I think this persona and their views are horrid and disgusting". It was an off-hand comment made within a larger, on topic, and constructive comment in the AfD itself. I don't believe that off-hand comments such as that made while otherwise being constructive in a conversation should be held against a person unless they are being extremely defamatory and accusing a BLP of negative factual things. Otherwise, small comments like the example above shouldn't be held against users. While the above vote seems to be closed, do note that I would have been a support. Silverseren^C 11:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But the point is that it should not be used for off hand critism, it should be used for improvement.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you make an off-hand comment about a BLP within a bigger comment that is constructive and on-topic, then it is still improvement. The off-hand comment shouldn't be held against a user. Silverseren^C 20:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why use off-hand critism at all? Why not just the constructive and on-topic comment?--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some users post remarks without thinking, while other users mistakenly believe that their point of view is objective and indisputable. Off-hand comments can be unintentional. Users needs safeguards in order to ensure that they aren't blocked for carelessness. I don't believe WP:CREEP is sufficient enough to avoid being blocked or to create a case for unblocking. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but won't people purposely add off-hand critism if they find out it's allowed?--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We have ways of identifying and dealing with gaming the system and Wikilawyering. Asking for these proposals to be foolproof is asking too much. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is exacly why I oppose to it, also to which I said before, talk pages should be used for wiki improvement and not wiki critism. I'm not asking you to actully foolproof it or oppose the proposal as whole. Just stating how people could take advantage of it.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors make lots of little mistakes that shouldn't (and largely don't) come back to bite them every day; we don't have to codify every one - especially as it gives a very few the platform to misuse discussion pages. Of course; if it turns out a lot of people are being blocked or banned for making a comment such as the one Sandstein mentioned, then yes it needs to be considered and codified. Absent that I think normal, sensible approaches work fine :) If it was clearly not intended to "break" the policy, it is let slide. Persistent problems are raised politely with the editor in question. And those deliberately making comments about living persons to prove a point will be blocked (a la Mindbunny). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But BLP critism(IMO) should never be allowed, let alone necessary, but looking at how a IP or a new user could mistaken this, I guess I could agree on how this proposal could be helpfull to not only them, but wikipedia. But nevertheless, my decision is still oppose, and will most likely always be oppose.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Should deletion nominations be limited to a certain amount of tries?

I noticed that some articles have been getting nominated more than ten to even twenty times, such as the Gay Nigger Association of America, and the article of now-defunct Encyclopedia Dramatica. I thought a question should be asked to the community of Wikipedia on how many times an article should be allowed to go through deletion, and if possible, should it be limited to a set amount? Rainbow Dash 14:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would say there should not be a specific limit, just as there should not be a limit of deletion review requests. What matters is that each new request is not merely a request to re-run a previous conclusive result with the hopes that a different outcome occurs, but that there is a good faith belief on the part of the nominator that either some policy requires that the article be deleted which was not addressed (or in existence) in the previous deletion discussions, or that general consensus on similar articles has moved since the last discussion. I would just mention that GNAA went through a large number of DRVs before getting restored, and any hard limit would have stopped that, so it works both ways. Monty₈₄₅ 14:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• The gay NA was trolled by nominating vandals and many of the 20 are not AFD discussion at all but vandal edits and deletions. That article has not been nominated since 2006, over four and a half years ago. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Rule creep. We can deal with this on a case-by-case basis, along the lines that Monty advocates. Do we have an actual problem with AFD being gamed like this? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• This isnt just a case at AfD, it's everywhere in Wikipedia, if a policy says something someone doesnt like or doesnt go "far enough" according to a few people they just keep bringing up the same wording change over and over and hope eventually they get a day where those opposing it are too busy and they get a slight majority and once they have their way they shut down anybody from the other side who wants to bring up the discussion again saying "we just had consensus on this". For this reason ALL DISCUSSIONS need to have time limits between when you can bring up the same discussion, whether its a new policy wording or an AfD or anything else. Once a consensus (or no consensus) has been reached, then THAT is the decision. You shouldnt get 1,000 tries before you get your way. Just as you have to for the next election (in 2 or 4 years depending on the office) if you lose; you cant say "well, I just lost the election, now I want a new election right NOW two months after it. I think I might win now because my opponents wont show up at the polls."Camelbinky (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you advocating an actual rule, Camelbinky? If so, could you provide examples of (alleged) gaming of the present system? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not advocating an actual rule because Wikipedia has no rules whatsoever at all. I'm advocating the addition to policy that we have a time limit between bringing up the same discussion after it fails (or passes based on what side you are on), and as with any policy there are and will be exceptions based on consensus of the Community on what is best for Wikipedia; we may ignore the time limit on certain occasions and we dont need to spell out in policy the exceptions because we dont need "rules". As for examples... Well, let's see- every four months we go through at WP:V or the RS/N the discussion regarding whether non-English sources should be allowed and each time we have to state YES. Constant discussion at WP:5P regarding their status, each time results in "no tag" or no consensus regarding putting it as an essay and definite consensus against policy tag; but yet we have to drag out another discussion every couple months because someone wants to change the wording of the 5P or the FAQ page or asks "what is the 5P?". Latham Circle was nominated for AfD based on non-notability, passed by a large margin, and then was renominated based on non-notability (and I guess stub-status, but stub-status is not a legitimate reason for deletion). If something is found to be notable then it's notable. You lose, then you lose; you had your chance to make your point.Camelbinky (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But Latham Circle was kept the second time...? I don't understand the problem. Notability guidelines could evolve over a period of time, for example. What's the point in having a policy which says "don't renom within n months" and then let people nominate within that period? Everyone's going to think their case is an exception to the rule. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest, instead, that an unsuccessful XfD should preclude another XfD for a reasonable period, say a minimum of six months between bites of the apple. Right now, sometimes the very week an XfD has been closed, another nomination for deletion is made, or a discussion arguning for such is made on the article talk page. This verges on gameplaying at that point. Collect (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• If an AfD is premised on the question of whether the subject is notable based on the existing content of the article or existing sources are reliable, a determination to that effect should be difficult to upset. However, if an AfD closes on the premise that existing problems can be resolved, the article should remain subject to deletion if the problems identified are not addressed. bd2412 T 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • the whole AfD close under "keep and fix" premise is such a farce - the "fixing" is never doneActive Banana (^bananaphone 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Both a maximum number of AFD/DRVs and fixed time limits between AFDs are bad ideas. Keep the current system, it seems to work reasonably well. Yoenit (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It does? Really? Where is the proof that it works? That's like saying the US education and health care systems dont need to be fixed because "they work reasonably well". These frequent AfD's waste our time that can be used on editing and creating other articles. Creating and adding information to articles is the very (and only) reason Wikipedia exists and it is crap that there are those who waste time on anything else thereby causing the rest of us to waste time. If an article needs to be "kept and fixed" then how about those that think it needs to be fixed (or deleted) take THEIR time to fix it! Ridiculous that people go around slapping templates and AfD's on articles but never seem to have the time to do what needs to be done to FIX the problems they are so willing to point out.Camelbinky (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is the proof that it does not work? Is the sky falling down? The encyclopedia collapsing? With regards to wasting time, look at the hyphen-dash debate. Now that is example of wasting of time, a few unnecessary AFD's are absolutely nothing compared to that. I also don't understand the attitude that you create a crappy article and then expect me to clean it up? That is like having your dog shit on the street and then telling to people who complain about it that they should clean it up. Yoenit (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind the next time I delete an article about a teacher/junkie/activist who is known for pedophilia and smoking crack. Or some 9-year-old kid who has a high gamerscore and plays Halo a lot. –MuZemike 06:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If the article is kept on a very marginal basis, I watch the article and after a reasonable amount of time ~3 weeks I re-nominate the article explaining the previous AfD's marginal keep reasoning and how the article has not improved, despite assurances that it's issues could be resolved. Some articles (Like a certain neologisim) have been nominated for AfD multiple times despite the significant community consensus that it is notable, well sourced and cited, and provides a decent understanding of the word. If you want to fight something, fight the editors who are bringing these spurious AfDs that are taking away time from articles in general. Hasteur (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Collect: I'll give a prime example that is in the AfD process currently. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Bhandari (2nd nomination). The article was created before the creation of WP:BLPPROD, was nominated for deletion on the 27th of May, was speedy nominated on the 27th of May (and speedied thereby closing the original AfD discussion), was restored via a user request on the first of June for userfication, and moved back into the Article space less than 3 hours after userfication. At this point I was trolling the AfD closing date page and noticed that the article had been nominated, speedied, and was a blue-link again. I went through and edited the article to remove links that masqueraded as RS citation and rightly nominated it for AfD. Now this meant that less than a week after the previous AfD was closed a new one was opened for the same article. If there is a truly good reason for the article to be up for deletion it should, otherwise I'm open to a 3~5 week stay on deletion discussions while those who were in the majority consensus work on the article to improve it. Hasteur (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, if someone has something new and useful to add to the discussion or the consensus, then they should be free to add it. Users have the right to challenge consensus, and if the new AfD ends with "keep", then the discussion serves to reaffirm and augment the original consensus. It wouldn't be fair for to bar users who missed the chance to partake in the previous discussion from starting new ones, where they could potentially bring up new ideas, issues, or alternatives that weren't brought up before. Several users and I worked hard in the discussions involving the GNAA article's restoration, and it would be a shame if all our collective efforts were doomed from the start due to some silly discussion cap. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - there is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Require a seconder?. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• The last time this was bought up I offered a suggestion that I expected to be rejected as CREEPy and I expect it to be rejected now but I offer it anyway. If any first AFD closes with a "clean keep" (not "no consensus", not a "delete" overturned at DRV, not "speedy" or "procedural" anything), then anybody who nominates the article again shall be required to "impeach" the previous decision. That is he must explain why the previous consensus was wrong. Can he show that the sources used to demonstrate notability in the previous AFD were not reliable? Has a guideline or policy changed since the first AFD? Did a significant number of the "keep" !voters turn out to be somebody's socks? If he just says something like "not notable" while pretending that the previous discussion never happened then the AFD can be speedy closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is basically covered by wp:BEFORE point 3. Than again, wp:BEFORE could do with a big cleanup and trim so people actually start reading it. Yoenit (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I doubt the length of WP:BEFORE is particularly significant; I think that, in cases such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu Gaze, it's simply ignored. Meph^talk 09:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Much more likely the editor, with his grand total of 16 edits, had no idea it existed in the first place. While making wp:BEFORE shorter may not help with that issue, it will definitely not make it worse either. Yoenit (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Of course there shouldn't be a limit. Such a limit is so trivially gamed as to be laughable, and to virtually guarantee no article ever gets deleted again. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. An ad hoc solution, with the potential for exploitation. Meph^talk 09:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, somepony isn't getting the idea. This isn't some deletionist scheme as a guy said in the other discussion linked, nor is it a way to guarantee a said article should never get deleted. But when you take into account articles on a subject that are obviously hated and/or cause editors to have such an extreme bias, that said person will try at least 100 nominations until said community gets fed up and lets the moaning child get his wish. Rainbow Dash 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lulz, unintended sentence fragment anyone? But to continue my argument above, because this moaning child who will not stop at nominating the article so many times, the article will never get any benefit or effort to fix, and the community will only start thinking of new ways to get their agenda to work. Rainbow Dash 12:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any example of this or are you just making it up as you go along? Yoenit (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's go back to the GNAA subject again. Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America has this curious template that shows 21 deletion discussions directed at this one article. And the Gay Nigger isn't alone, because his buddy Al Gore III went through 8 AfDs, and 1 DRVs, and his distant cousin List of male performers in gay porn films went through 7 AfDs and 2 DRVs. All of these discussions have one thing in common, and that is an extreme biased hatred from the community. Rainbow Dash 12:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikinfo (6 nominations) should also be mentioned. I don't think it can be argued that the community "hates" this article. It was kept for a long time for "historical" or "legacy" reasons or something but was eventually deleted. There's also Steak and Blowjob Day (3 nominations) A subject that "technically" fails our notability guidelines but otherwise seems to be a popular meme. I don't see this as a matter of "hatred" so much as a strong belief by some that WP:N needs to be enforced consistently and a subject shouldn't get a free pass simply because it has a lot of "groupies" to defend it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So, which of dozens of editors who nominated these articles for AFD/DRV is the "moaning child"? I will not dispute that these articles have seen a unseemly amount of deletion discussions, but almost all of those are several years old. The male preformers article was last nominated in November 2009 and while Al Gore III was put to DRV half a year ago, the last AFD before that is from February 2008. A similar gap can be found between the last discussions for List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (Feb 2011 - April 2009). (why did you remove this one from your comment btw?) I don't see how a nomination once every 2 years is a problem, regardless of the article's prior history. With regards to the GNAA, its last AFD is 5 years old, so I couldn't care less that it has 21 of them. It is definitely record holder for most DRV's though (although those are seriously inflated by trolls). But even this extreme example has been stable for 3 months now and is in fact being actively improved (note it is nominated for GA). Yoenit (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this already covered by Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22? The GNAA didn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines until the At&T Email leak, so it was the 18th AfD that finally fulfilled what the AfD was meant for, and it was the 12th DRV that finally fulfilled what DRV was meant for. As I'm said in the last GNAA DRV, some of discussion were started by trolls wishing to heighten GNAA's AfD high score rather than "haters", and the haters in opposition were correct about the GNAA's lack of notability until about a year ago. It also took many discussions for the community to realize that Daniel Brandt wasn't notable. Somethings, the community is too stubborn to admit that it's wrong, so repeating discussions in order reaffirm or overturn the previous consensus isn't such a good thing. Wikipedia needs to be open to new discussions. There's a chance that a group of users may try to continuously create new AfD in hopes that the community will eventually lose the willpower to combat them, but that's why we have closing admins who could see through these attempts. Disruptive users may also be warned or blocked. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If this was ever to be implemented, it would have to be limited to good faith nominations. Without that caveat it would be quite possible for someone to nominate an article for deletion several times, withdraw the nomination quickly each time, and reach the limit so it couldn't be nominated again, thereby removing any possibility of it being deleted even if it deserves to be. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with the proposal. Bad-faith nominations should be the ones limited, not the good-faith ones. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone talking like an article should be renominated for DELETION if it isnt "cleaned up"? Being a stub or having crappy formatting or grammar or what have you is NEVER a reason to delete! We are specifically a "work in progress" and it is in fact policy not to delete based on such BS like "it has bad grammar", delete because of notability, not whether it is a crappy article. Maybe people thinking anything that is "crappy" should be nominated is the problem and their ability to nominate should in fact be limited. And secondarily- Why is it any of your concern if someone makes a crappy article and you dont want to fix it, then why do you care if it exists? If it bothers you so much then FIX IT. Or ignore it. But deletion to make it go away is not an option.Camelbinky (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that we need to do somethig to quell this problem. I get rather frustrated when I am involved in a 6 week conversation about something only to have it get resubmitted a week after it closes and start the process all over again. --Kumioko (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's frustrating, but I don't think we want a firm rule. If we have new information, we should act on that. Also, WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway, so adding a "no re-nominations allowed for 30 days" rule wouldn't really have much impact. It'd just be one more bureaucratic (rather than substantive) complaint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have at various times proposed rules, but in practice, it does depend on the details, and I would not like to try to solve any general problem using GNAA as an example. I think we are in general getting more reasonable about this--there is much less repeated abusive nomination going on than there used to be 3 years ago when I first discovered AfD process. I've also seen objections to renominations after repeated non-consensus, and this is a very different matter than if after repeated keeps. If there's no consensus we need to admit it, and see if we can get it a little later. My suggestion was 3 to 6 months after a keep,doubling after each successive keep, with anything need to be done quicker being approved by deletion review. There is sometimes a need to quickly revisit a keep that was anomalous. What I think we really need, is some way to equally easily review a deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand concerns about rules creep but conversely does anyone have a valid example of where more than 5 nominations was ANYTHING BUT an attempt to do by brute force what could not be done by consensus? I am entirely in favor of both a hard cap on the number of tries (remember notability is not temporary, but a page's defenders may move on as time goes by) and a hard limit on renomination after a valid consensus close. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Instead of a hard cap on the number of tries, a better policy might be giving a topic closed a Keep immunity from another deletion challenge for one year. Consensus does change over time; the point is to limit the gaming of the system implicit in multiple repeated deletion attempts. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Location links straw poll

When linking a location, which method do you prefer?

Example location text: Princeton, New Jersey

Option 1: Link both Princeton and New Jersey separately, so that the wikitext looks like [[Princeton, New Jersey|Princeton]], [[New Jersey]]

Option 2: Link only Princeton, New Jersey directly, so that the wikitext looks like [[Princeton, New Jersey]]

I realize that there can be other issues (including United States, for example), but if we could limit support/oppose and discussion to just this one area for now, I think that would be informative. Thank you in advance,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Option 1. - Although the article naming convention "Town Name, State" is common for United States locations, it is not common for other parts of the world. As a result most places will have seperate WikiLinks for Town Name and State for instance "Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate" - and there should be consistency across all articles. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  After the comments below I'll expand my rationale. I understood the context of the question to be one where NJ was relevant and its inclusion not regarded Overlinking. That said if that was not the case, my option would be the same with NJ unlinked. Per the comment that we should not have two links so close together that they are mistaken for one link. Surely the opposite is also true - we should not be giving the impression that NJ is a link to NJ when it is really part of a single link to Princeton. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

  I wanted to make this as generic of a question as possible, which is where the "I realize that there can be other issues" closing came from. I see this sort of thing as falling in to the "other issues" category; however, I'm willing to give some details. This particular example is very typical in my experience, being drawn from the Albert Einstein article. I selected it semi-randomly (note that I've never actually edited that particular article). The instance that it's used is in the infobox, in this particular case. It's fairly easy to see this pattern used in the first two or three sentences of most bio articles though. I'm not sure if or how that changes anything, but there's the explanation at least. I have to be honest though, that I'm not exactly clear on what you're saying above. Are you changing your "vote"?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, I'm not changing my vote - I'm suggesting that Option 1 with NJ delinked [[Princeton, New Jersey|Princeton]], New Jersey would still be preferable to me over Option 2 - as it's more consistent with the way articles on towns are titled outside of the U.S. and if you apply Option 2 and anyone clicks on NJ they would expect to go to the article on NJ, but nstead they end up at one on Princeton which is possibly confusing for non U.S readers.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Option 2. Who wants to go to the article on New Jersey? Virtually no-one. If you're interested, 99% says you want Princeton. Oh, for the 1% of people that actually want New Jersey, it's one extra click. Option 1 represents overlinking IMHO. In my view, "Linked, non-linked" is also acceptable in the case of places where a single link isn't available.- Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 21:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Generally Option 2. If the state is truly significant to the context (Wikipedia:Only make links relevant to the context), it will be linked in a subsequent sentence. Neutrality^talk 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Option 2 is both my personal preference and the option that best complies with the relevant page of the Manual of Style, which says *When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Option 2 – common sense usage links that best serve the context of the article. –MuZemike 07:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ADHOM + NOREASON voting at AfD

Hi, can someone advise me what is the best way to prevent an AfD discussion from being pulled off-track by several experienced editors tag-teaming to inundate it with ADHOM/NOREASON votes? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 20:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Make it something to do with Kosovo. No experienced editor will go near it.©Geni 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I found the AfD that you're probably asking in question about. Needless to say I'm disappointed at some of the Keep voter's reasoning and whom has decided to wade into this debate. Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I agree. But basically my question is, is there a way of actually dealing with that sort of thing beyond the "grin and bear it" technique? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 21:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Per NYB" has generally been considered the best argument on WP. Did that recently change? -Atmoz (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Once he started ignoring policy and guidelines, yes.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible for several experienced editors to have the same opinion of their own accord, and say so. But more specifically with respect to the AfD in question, when an experienced and trusted user is unfairly set upon, it's usual for others to support him. As the matter has nothing at all to do with VP (Policy), bringing it here is likely to be seen as another attempt to intimidate through blatant canvassing. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I must confess to being unclear as to how asking advice on approaches to dealing with policy violations falls outside the remit of the Village Pump (policy) page? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 09:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To quote the box at the top of this page (emphasis added):

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
[...]
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

I hope that helps. Regards SoWhy 09:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting is about to close

It is currently 10:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC) , voting closes at 23:59 UTC, so just hours after this post. If you want to vote, please do so. Additionally, there's been an on-going discussion about a recommendation for voting to be extended to give people more time, opinions welcome. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting has now officially finished. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation to consolidate citation template documentation

Recommendation: - I would like to suggest rewriting the citation template documentation (such as {{Cite Web}}) into a central consolidated document.

Problem description: - Currently each template has its own documentation page which means that whenever a change is made to one of the core templates we need to modify each and every one of the others. What this has led to is the documentation for each of the templates to be out of sync with the actual code and with the other associated templates. This means essentially that there are parameters missing from the documentation of each template, the verbiage differs between templates, some have documentation for parameters that were eliminated but the verbiage remains, etc.

Solution: - Because the functionality of the tempaltes is virtually the same (Most look like Cite X, X being the template extension) it should be fairly easy to write the document in a general way that covers most or all of these templates. This will allow 1 change to be made to the documentation rather than changing them all, or, rather, not changing them all.

I also believe this will simplify the instructions for users of the templates, will clarify the meaning and language of what each parameter does and generally make it easier to update and use these templates.

I would also create a sortable wikitable of all the parameters and which is used in what template.

I believe I can start the writing process but as its been pointed out to me in the past my grammer and punctuation are not as good as others no doubt due in part to the lacking American educational system (just joking don't take offense) so I would need others to proof read and help out. Does anyone have any comments on this proposal. --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

They're already (mostly) consolidated in {{Citation/core}}. The documentation issue is something else though. We probably should do something about standardizing the documentation.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. The documentation is what I was referring too. --Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading what you posted, I see that now. Sorry.

I'm certainly supportive of the idea, although I'd like to see the implementation details.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the concept, but I don't think it's going to work for two reasons:

1. When I'm looking at the documentation, I really don't want to be faced with a large table filled with parameters I can't use, because those options aren't in this template. IMO the most valuable part of the docs is the list of parameters that don't silently fail in that template.
2. What you need to know about some of the same-name fields isn't the same in every context. For example, "publisher" is valuable and easy to supply for {{Cite book}}, commonly used to identify the immediate owner or corporate author in {{Cite web}}, and discouraged for {{Cite news}} (because almost nobody gets it right. They put "Nytimes.com" [name of website] or The New York Times [name of newspaper] in the slot, when the technically correct answer is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. [name of publisher], and what we want is The New York Times Company [name of the newspaper's owner]). Putting up identical documentation on those three templates means that we're going to give people the wrong answer two times out of three. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That was kinda what I was thinking too. These templates each implement parameters differently, so unifying the documentation would be very difficult. On the other hand, we could work to make the various documentation pages more uniform in how they present information such as parameters. I tried to do this with the documentation page for {{Cite IETF}}. In some ways it shared a lot with both {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}}, but in other ways it differs significantly. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your points, maybe the way to go is how Tothwolf suggests and just standardize the format in which the information is displayed. We might also be able to make one standard template/doc to display the general description of the parameters in one place? Rather than duplicate this in multiple places that all need to be updated. --Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A common talk page might be something to think about... ?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Similarly formatted docs sound good to me. I have no objection to a common talk page, although they seem to confuse people on occasion. Perhaps a note at the top would be appropriate (presumably there's a template... There's a template for almost everything.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say the talk page is a good idea especially for the lesser known and used templates. Do we know which one we want to target them too? --Kumioko (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations in Poland) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations in Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons in infoboxes

If you have a view on flags in infoboxes you may be interested in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Infobox flags here. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists in living people category

Category:Living people currently contains 526,970 pages. Three of these are not biographies, but lists:

• List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal
• List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK)
• List of United States Military Academy alumni

While these lists do concern living people, this category is something of a special case with respect to categorization rules. The category description page states:

This category is intended for use in articles structured as biographical entries for living individuals.

Should these articles be in this category? If so, what should determine whether list articles are so categorized? (There are, of course, many more lists of living people than these three). Gurch (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This may be a result of the BLP template. I put one at List of California public officials charged with crimes for the reasons stated on its talk page, and that adds it to the category. Lists like these should be monitored for BLP violations, since simply adding a name or a link to a person who does not belong on such lists could be a BLP violation, while text in an annotated list could be a problem, even for individuals properly included. It may be that a different template for lists with potential BLP issues would be a better solution.--Hjal (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists should not be included in the Living people category as the category description clearly states it is for biographical articles of "living individuals". Besides, it could become problematic and misleading when one or more of the people listed is no longer among the living. Agree with Hjal that a BLP template specially designed for lists would be a better solution for dealing with lists that potentially run afoul of BLP policy.--JayJasper (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

{{BLP}} is a talk page template, and adds the talk page to Category:Biography articles of living people. This is separate from Category:Living people, which goes on the article. Category:Biography articles of living people is more broad in its scope – its description states it is for "the talk pages of articles which relate to living persons", rather than specifically for individual biographies.

I completely agree that some form of monitoring is necessary, and agree with the use of Category:Biography articles of living people on the talk pages of such articles. The question I am posing is whether list articles are appropriate for inclusion in Category:Living people.

Also, "should be monitored for BLP violations" isn't a good criterion for categorization, since all articles (and all other pages) have to be monitored for BLP violations, even those not directly concerned with living people   libellous statements are problematic regardless of where they appear. {{BLP}} itself is inherently somewhat arbitrary in its application; "This article and talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons" is a statement that is true wherever the template is placed; we merely choose to reiterate that fact on biographical talk pages. Gurch (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

MOS for an alphabetized list of people

I'm looking at List of Guatemalans, which lists people with [[First name Last name|Last name, First name]] syntax. I want to remove the pipes, but can't find policy that states this is proper procedure. Anyone know where it is? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It may not be codified anywhere, but looking at other similar lists, I can't find any that are piped like this, nor can I think of a good reason to. Be bold. If someone complains or reverts, discuss it with them and see why they think it should stay that way. postdlf (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably most relevant, I can't find any lists of people piped that way at Wikipedia:Featured lists, which is good evidence of prevailing standards. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

”Years Active"

There is a term which frequently pops up in biographical info boxes that does not seem to have a consistent meaning; 'years active'. For some individuals the term seems to refer to the years during which they worked; Betty White's "years active" are 1939-present, because she got her first job in 1939. In other articles, the term refers to the years during which they worked at whatever made them famous; Bob Barker's years active are 1956-2007 because that is the period during which he hosted game shows, even though he had worked at radio stations during the 1940s and has continued to appear frequently since 2007 as guest hosts at different events. There are more examples that are even more ridiculous, but I simply cant recall any at the moment. I'm sure you've seen them, though. I'm wondering if there is any 'official’ interpretation of the term, and if there's not, I suggest that one be formulated.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked the documentation for the relevant infoboxes? That's the usual place to record a consensus, assuming that one exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole system is unfair and biased

It seems to me that, while wikipedia is presented as the encycleopedia that anyone can edit, this is very misleading. It seems a lot more like an encycleopaedia which only experienced, well connected people who know all the tricks to keep their articles on and delete other people's can edit. And also, the rules are supposed to be all community driven and democratic, but democracy doesn't work when most people are wrong about something. It is the more experienced editors who know how to change things on wikipedia, and these are the people who the unfair, biased, current system benefits. I keep hearing the saying 'When in Rome, Do as the Romans'. I prefer the saying 'Be in the world, but not of the world'. Just because most people are wrong, that doesn't mean I should be wrong as well. It also seems that people on here enjoy deleting people's articles for fun, however much they may make excuss about 'official wikipedia rules'. so I think the whole sysem needs sorting out, but the chances are this will never happen, because of who gets to make the decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicianpig (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This desk is "to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines." Why did you post the above rant here? ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)