There is a language discrepancy between the blocking policy and the CheckUser/oversight policies regarding the modification of CheckUser/oversight blocks. The blocking policy states that administrators must not undo or "alter" CheckUser/oversight blocks, while the CheckUser/oversight policies state that administrators must not undo or "loosen" these blocks, without consulting the appropriate individual.

CheckUser blocks

Without first consulting a CheckUser, administrators must not undo or alter any block that is specifically identified as a "checkuser" block, such as through the use of the {{checkuserblock}} or {{checkuserblock-account}} templates in the action summary.^[1]
— Wikipedia:Blocking policy § CheckUser blocks (WP:CUBL)

Administrators must not undo nor loosen any block that is specifically called a "CheckUser block" without first consulting a CheckUser.^{[notes 1][notes 2]}
— Wikipedia:CheckUser § CheckUser blocks

Oversight blocks

Administrators must not undo or alter any block that is specifically identified as an "oversight" block, such as through the use of the {{OversightBlock}} template in the action summary, without first consulting an Oversighter.
— Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Oversight blocks (WP:OSBL)

Administrators must not undo nor loosen any block that is specifically called a "oversight block" without first consulting an oversighter.
— Wikipedia:Oversight § Oversight blocks

The "alter" wording in the blocking policy prevents administrators from placing additional restrictions (specifically, disabling email and talk page access) on the blocked account before consulting with the blocking checkuser/oversighter. Based on current practices, I do not think it is typical for administrators to ask for permission before disabling email/talk page access for a CheckUser/oversight blocked account that is actively abusing these features.

I propose for the word "alter" to be changed to "loosen" in Wikipedia:Blocking policy § CheckUser blocks (WP:CUBL) and Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Oversight blocks (WP:OSBL) to be consistent with the language in Wikipedia:CheckUser § CheckUser blocks and Wikipedia:Oversight § Oversight blocks. — Newslinger talk 10:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• 'Loosen' wording seems logical. Same as page protections, or general blocks, another admin can always place larger restrictions if something else happens. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Loosen seems reasonable. It is generally accepted that you can revoke TPA / email on a checkuser block without consulting with the blocking CU first. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Though the time I did that, I did consult with the blocking CU and they advised me that it might be also worth explaining that you didn't make the CU block but simply revoked email / TPA in the block summary to avoid confusion. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  But they didn't necessarily say that they wanted to be asked first for revoking TPA / email. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support - seems like a sensible change to align policies. Admins shouldn't remove sanctions that are based on private evidence they can't review, but we shouldn't be putting in barriers to stacking other sanctions on top when appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - in principle this seems fine, but the question arises as to whether a subsequent "loosening" of the restrictions back down to the level imposed by the CU block is acceptable or not? Or would CUs have to be consulted even just to go back to the status quo before the admin's tightening.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  That would make sense? CUs upgrade regular indef blocks to CU indef blocks all the time. If a CU wants to maintain the new, extra restriction by an admin, they could turn it into a CU one. If they don't, well, it's a regular block? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  I can only really speak for CU here, but the settings that a non-CU should never touch if they're set by a checkuser are the block itself (of course) and also "block account creation", and for IP blocks "apply block to logged-in users from this IP address". If we revoke talk page access it's probably because of something that happened on-wiki. My guess is that for OS a non-OS admin shouldn't touch the talk page and email settings, and for arbcom blocks we probably shouldn't alter them at all. Otherwise it's going to be case-by-case and a bit of common sense applies, but of course it doesn't hurt to ask the protecting CU/OS or generally anyone with the same userrights for their input first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support in spirit, but the rather than changing the wordings to be the same, put the text in a template and transclude that everywhere it's needed. That way, it can never get out of sync again. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, at the very least, the principle that the wording should be the same. I can see an argument for why it should be "loosen", I can see an argument for why it should be "alter". I don't particularly care which, but "loosen" seems to have a lower potential for drama (in that fewer admins are going to be yelled at for yanking TPA after a CU-block) and so I can get behind that. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable to harmonize language, and I agree that practice would dictate that "loosen" is the better term here. --Jayron32 15:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I understand the sentiment here. But "loosen" is a terrible and fairly archaic word. What you are trying to say is that administrators may add blocking of talk page access or sending of emails if not already applied by the blocking CU. Try wording that actually says that. I'd like to know how often an admin has been given a hard time for adding additional blocks levels to a CU block - I suspect that's more a fantasy than reality, because I've never heard of anyone actually getting in trouble for extending the block level. Risker (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Reading zzuuzz's response below, it occurs to me that checkusers often have reason to not include certain blocking options; generally, we're pretty precise when it comes to the blocks we apply. The same goes for oversighters; we're most often blocking with TP access and email disabled, but there may be a reason to not do that in some cases, and if we haven't added autoblock, there's probably a reason. I'd leave it at "altered" because there's seldom reason to change a CU or OS block without discussing it with a CU or OS. I'd like to see a live example of where someone felt they had to absolutely, right now modify a CU/OS block and couldn't reach a CU/OS. Risker (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  I see Ivanvector made a similar point above. There are times that I've CU-blocked an IP address, apparently out of the blue, then a few minutes later it starts visibly spewing unbelievably gross abuse on their talk page. I have no problem with the next available admin locking the talk page down. The same goes for email abuse, which might appear from an account some years after a CU block. I could find examples of both from the last few months. I'd prefer to be notified as it can be useful knowledge, and it may require another use of the CU tool, but these actions are not going to be controversial. However what admins shouldn't be doing (without consultation) is to hardblock a softblock, add an autoblock, prevent account creation, or perhaps even increase the block length.
  

  I think a distinction should be made between MUST NOT loosen/lift/reduce/remove, and SHOULD NOT alter (place additional restrictions) without good reason and/or further developments. The latter is not currently written into policy, beyond what can be deduced from the blocking policy, current practice, and common sense. I'm not really convinced it needs to be written into policy either. But as for this proposal and getting consistency in the policies, it's certainly true that non-CUs MUST NOT loosen a CU block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with what you're saying and I don't like "loosen" either, but this is an argument for adjusting the wording in both policies, isn't it? Also, RoySmith's suggestion of transcluding this to both policy pages from a common source is a good idea. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  I don't get what's terrible or archaic about the word "loosen". It seems like a perfectly normal, current, word to me. For example I'm sure it's the word usually used by the media when talking about relaxing COVID-19 restrictions. Is this one of those cases where a word has different connotations in the UK (where I am) and the US? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Risker, how about "may not remove or reduce any block placed by..."? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  That works for me, Guy, based on the comments above from Ivanvector and zzuuzz. In response to Phil Bridger, I'm in Canada (not the US), but I don't think I have seen or heard the term used conversationally or in journalism in decades; even back then, it was almost always used with respect to bindings or ropes. Risker (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Policy and practicality should agree. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support The reasons to not unblock/loosen don't apply to tightening these blocks. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support sameness, clarity, and transclusion, whatever the standard may be. "Loosen" seems better than "alter" but I agree it's awkwardly vague, and probably it should all be changed to more clearly spell out exactly what admin can and cannot do to CU and OS blocks. And it should be transcluded per Roy. Lev!vich 06:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I generally support this in principle, that is until someone comes up with a better phrase than 'loosen'. Actually when it comes to autoblocks, account creation, and hard IP blocks, non-checkusers should really consult a checkuser when making any alteration to a checkuser block. Checkusers, as they say, know something you don't, and they will have chosen these parameters carefully because they know something you don't. Upgrading email and talk page restrictions is not so important. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support harmonisation, and RoySmith's idea is a good one. I'm happy with "loosening" until something better is found. Regarding restoring settings to that set by an oversighter (I can't speak for CU blocks) I'd say it's always worth checking first. Speaking as an oversighter it has happened that we've blocked someone for something oversightable but left talk page access only for the person then to post something potentially oversightable on their talk page. If that post is first spotted by an administrator who is not an oversighter (likely given the relative numbers) then they may (and should) revision delete it and remove talk page access before alerting us. We may decide to oversight the rev delled material, in which case the talk page access should not be removed without permission from an oversighter. We may however decide revision deletion is sufficient, in which case an admin downgrading to the original settings is usually going to be OK, but checking first is never going to harm things. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have flagged this discussion up on the Functionaries list. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'd be fine with "undo or alter any block" --> "undo or reduce any block" ; conceptually I'd think of this the same way I would if the technical ability for someone to have multiple blocks assigned to them (c.f. phab:T194697) -- adding to the block controls without removing the controls that are supported by information an administrator may not be privy to is a non-problem to me. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Suggest "rescind" or "remove"; additional sanctions can be placed, but restrictions placed by oversighters cannot be removed. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support overall, I definitely think this should reflect established practise, and I certainly can't think of an occasion where a non-CheckUser adding talk-page-blocked to someone belligerent with a CheckUser block was objected to. As far as phrasing goes, my personal choice would be must not "reduce or remove" (reduce being a good word to cover both effect and length, and remove being (in my view) better than "undo" because I feel "undo" has an implication of "make it like it never happened", rather than just "make it not there anymore". But regardless of the exact phrasing (loosen is fine too) I think this is worth changing and harmonising, via RoySmith's template idea if that works best. ~ mazca ^talk 21:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Good spot! Noi, we should not prevent admins from controlling abuse of email or talk page access by blocked users, that is silly and making them go via CU/OS first would put an even greater strain on a small and chrnoiically overworked group of people for no obvious benefit. The intent is to prevent the lifting of blocks placed on the basis of non-public evidence. The change supports that and adds clarity. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Pulling talk page access for abuse or multiple unproductive appeals only requires on-wiki evidence and does not require the private information CUs have. MER-C 16:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, admins certainly should not reverse or loosen checkuser blocks without consulting the checkuser who placed it, but handling abuse of email and/or talk page access should not require that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand our policy on archiving the talk pages of IP users, and would be grateful if someone could tell me what I'm missing.

I'm given to understand that we have ~9,280,186 (quarry:query/48920) such pages (a further 500,000+ were apparently deleted, circa 2008).

It has been my understanding that the usual practice, when they get long, is to simply blank them, or to blank all but the last couple of notices/ discussions, as the full page history is available to anyone who wishes to view it. Also, for that reason, we do not usually create talk page archives, as we do for the talk pages of users with a counts.

I recently found a set of just over seventy archived IP talk pages, identified by the main talk page being tagged with {{Warning archive notice}}. I duly nominated them for deletion, but they have been kept, apparently on the basis of the question "why we would want to delete the long history of an IP's vandalism and abuse".

Does that mean that we should now be archiving all IP talk pages? If not, why are the seventy-odd pages mentioned above different from the other >9.7 million? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need to do ANYTHING to someone else’s talk page? Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

None of the pages described is, AFICT, "someone else's talk page", they're shared IP pages (indeed, some are tagged as such); as I noted above, it seems to be common practice to blank such pages, when necessitated by their length. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Archiving an IP talk page by someone other than the user of that talk page can be done under WP:Ignore all rules. That is, if the general practice is "don't" but there's a good reason to do so that won't stir controversy, you can and probably should do it.

The only reasons I can think of for an IP editor's talk page to be archived is 1) a person using that IP archives it or 2) it's an address that is believed to be static and archiving it will help administer the encyclopedia.

A decade or so ago, we had an editor with a static IP and a huge edit history who made a point of not logging in. I would not be surprised if that editor archived "his" own talk page.

As for #2, if an IP address is known to belong to a particular person with a long history of warnings and block notices, it may be reasonable and non-controversial for an administrator to archive the talk page under WP:IAR.

A note to any less experienced editors who might be reading this: While "Ignore all rules" IS policy, it should be applied with extreme care and is best left to experienced editors. If done without careful thought, it can cause far more problems than it was intended to solve. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm familiar with IAR. Have you found any of the seventy-odd pages referred to which meet either of your scenarios? I note that neither was invoked in the MfD discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

After looking at a sample of the 70, I think I should change my criteria for #2 to "a particular person or responsible entity" which would include almost all K-12 schools, some adult-level schools (some colleges and universities treat users of their IP address space as an ISP treats its customers, others hold users to stricter standards than a typical ISP does), and "company/employee use" corporate IP addresses.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend keeping all messages for all time in archives, but I would expect that admins would want to see the last few years' worth of warnings and related messages "at a glance" or if there are two many, one click away in an archive page, particularly when such addresses have been blocked during the last few years. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Interstingly, User talk:209.189.130.57, for example, has both an old archive page and, more recently, notices have simply been blanked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something... what is the PURPOSE of either blanking or archiving these pages? Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

For dynamically assigned IP addresses, removing messages older than some period of time clears away messages that were not delivered to the current user(s) of the IP address, and so may be confusing to them. For very long talk pages, removing older messages via blanking or archiving serves the same purpose as for registered user talk pages: it makes them more accessible for all editors. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an even more important reason that IP talk pages might occasionally be blanked. If an IP sees a notification that they have a new message and visits the link to their talk, they will probably ignore it and think we're nuts if what they see is a wall of templated waffle from months earlier. I might sometimes blank a talk page while adding an important warning because people can be excused for missing such a message if it's buried at the bottom. However, there is no need to systematically blank and certainly do not archive pointless warnings. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to as potentially confusing. isaacl (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So, what's the policy basis for keeping the 70-odd IP talk pages, mentioned above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

scopo Hi! I read the fair use policy but it did not answer my question so I am posting my message here: is this kind of fair use okay? (see Maid of Sker where it's used) and is there a specific quantity that an article should not exceed in fair-use files? I am thinking of adding 4 more files that explain the gameplay mechanics, help visualize the plot, and also a short 30-seconds piece of the theme music to the music section I thought about writing. Is this too much for a single article? (please ping me, thank you!)▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 21:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Épine, where's the talk page discussion? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, what talk page discussion? ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 22:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Épine, pretty much my point. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, if you mean the article talk page, it does not have one because I just created it. No one is currently watching the article aside from myself, so talking about it there is pretty much like talking to myself.

Anyway, I would appreciate the input of someone who can answer my question without trying to lecture me about something I did not ask about, though. ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 23:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that five non-free images plus a 30-second piece of non-free music is way too much. El Millo (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, I think media really adds value to articles. I know that each Wikipedia has its own separate policy regarding these stuff, I was an admin in ckb wiki for about two years and we always encouraged media in articles. How much is too much over here though, and shouldn't the policy clarify that you should not exceed a number of non-free files in each article? I did not see such points being made anywhere that is why I came here. ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 23:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of non-free media should be as minimal as possible. Check Wikipedia:Non-free content, especially the Meeting the minimal usage criterion section, and see if you can argue that this would be minimal use. El Millo (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, I looked into it. It looks like the English Wikipedia does not specifically stop authors from using more than one non-free media but encourages using free alternatives and using an image that explains multiple points at once (which is not available in my case.) I am trying to add a media explaining one of the game mechanics and two others that clarify the plot section. I can decide not to add the music for what it's worth since it's preferable by the en wiki. What do you think? ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 23:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the use should be borderline-essential, but let's see what other editors have to say. El Millo (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Épine,{{u|JzG} I think you were unfair to Guy. You are still new here, and it does take some time to sort out where things should be discussed. on the one hand, your question is a good one — you want to know whether your proposed use of fair use files is appropriate, and you should be applauded for deciding to ask rather than just plowing ahead and may be finding that your hard work gets reverted. However, you are asking about a specific application of existing policy to a specific article. if you look at the information at the top of this page, where he explains the intended usage of this page it says:

to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines

As reinforcement it also notes:

If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

Your question is squarely in the second category, so either ought to be raised in an appropriate noticeboard, or a discussion on the article talk page. It is understandable that posting this on that article talk page is not likely to get a lot of feedback because hardly anyone would have it on their watchlist, but you could start the discussion on the article talk page, then open up a query at the helpdesk or the teahouse with a link to that discussion. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This image is a generic gameplay image which usually doesn't meet the bar for inclusion as an image per the WP:NFCC. We do try to include images which demonstrate aspects that could not be otherwise described in words per the NFCC (art style, heads-up-display, etc.), and this screenshot is not one of them. In all cases, the content of the image must be commented on by reliable sources directly in the article.

You would do well to review WP:VGIMAGES, and feel free to ask any follow up questions here or at WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Épine As for the specific questions:

Is there a specific quantity that an article should not exceed in fair-use files. I am thinking of adding 4 more files that explain the gameplay mechanics, help visualize the plot, and also a short 30-seconds piece of the theme music to the music section I thought about writing. Yes, usually articles that need to rely on non-free media are limited to 1 identifying image (such as cover art, copy-righted logo, movie poster art). And that's it for free passes. Everything else needs to meet the WP:NFCC in full. Which is not usually possible because more than 1 or 2 additional files usually means the article will not meet the requirement for minimum use. See WP:NFCC#3 in particular on this point.

The other primary barrier is usually WP:NFCC#8, which requires sourced commentary on what the file is depicting directly such that the article would be lesser without the file in question. Usually one screenshot of gameplay will meet this bar, but the gameplay must also meet NFCC3, meaning a generic image like the above example is not usually above the bar. --Izno (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno, thank you for the valuable insight. The screenshot is of the protagonist using the only available weapon in the game. I believe that is very important to be included in the article. ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 01:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since this is the village pump, here's my view from 10,000 feet (ignoring the specifics of this case): Wikipedia is way too conservative about employing fair use, to the extent that it damages the movement for open information, since legal doctrine follows general practice. Some recommended listening on the topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb, I'm struggling to parse your comment. I think you are saying that we ought to allow more fair use, but I don't think I fully understand your rationale. I spent more time on copyright issues than fair use issues but I think there is some similarity. (I will also note that this is an appropriate venue for such a discussion.) I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia is more conservative than the boundaries set by the law with respect to both copyright issues and fair use issues, but I think that's deliberate and warranted. in your link the article a podcaster wondered whether she was crossing the line, although unless I missed something I didn't see a lot of specific examples. I think a random podcast or or blogger is going to get away with more than Wikipedia my getaway with, simply because an intellectual property rights lawyer looking at a podcast or blog post which skirts or crosses the line may not feel that legal action is warranted unless it's very egregious. In short, they typically don't have enough money to make it worthwhile. In contrast, the Wikimedia foundation can be viewed as a rich target. We are likely to get many more hits than a typical blogger or podcaster, and we are likely to be viewed as having more financial resources than a typical blogger or podcaster, so the exact same usage which might get a pass by the blogger or podcaster might attract legal action if done by Wikipedia. In addition even if we win, we lose. The cost of taking something to court and winning is not trivial, so we deliberately air on the side of conservative decisions, so that intellectual property lawyers aren't even tempted to take us on. I think that's a wise decision S Philbrick(Talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sphilbrick, the link is to an episode of The Pub, a trade podcast for people in American public media (e.g. NPR) by Adam Ragusea. It's an interview with Patricia Aufderheide, an expert on fair use law, about how journalists should apply that law, but it's somewhat applicable to Wikipedia since what we're doing has a bunch of similarities to journalism. She talks about some of the key principles for fair use and how they're often misinterpreted. She also says that judges, when deciding precedent-making cases, often take their cues from widespread practice, and that not employing fair use to the extent you're entitled to can therefore be damaging. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb The WP:NFCC are not strict because of a legal obligation, they are strict because of a moral obligation on our part. We promise the world that our content is perpetually free, and fair use content is incompatible with that guarantee. Not all countries have fair use doctrines, and what is fair use on our encyclopedia may not be fair use in other contexts. Every piece of non-free media is a liability for downstream re-users, and our non-free content criteria are intentionally strict for that reason. We should use non-free media only where free equivalents are impossible to obtain (along with 9 other criteria). — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  It is not a legal obligation, and we certainly owe no obligation to downstream re-users. Our readers would benefit from a more generous use of fair use (and especially free) material, but as Sphilbrick says, it is a compromise we make to avoid having corporate America shut us down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, this might be heresy, but I think our paramount obligation is to give readers the best encyclopedia we can, and ensuring that people can reuse our content for free comes secondary to that (which is not to say it's not still a core value, but the first pillar/WP:Purpose takes precedence over the third). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: The logo displayed on my computer says Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Does yours just say "The Encyclopedia" or something? — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with changing that to just "the encyclopedia". Because that is what Wikipedia is now. The encyclopedia; the primary summary of human knowledge. And it isn't free anyway, it costs millions of dollars per year, and people donate, and that's why we have nice things. Lev!vich 06:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  "Free" meaning libre, not "free" meaning "without cost". See Gratis versus libre. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  FUP isn't about protecting the WMF from liability, nor is it about protecting the right of copyright holders. It's also not about upholding any kind of moral obligation or standard; in fact, it's a perversion of the "free encyclopedia" concept. The FUP is about protecting people's right to profit from reproduction of the encyclopedia. "Free" means "free to sell". FUP is about making sure people can do things like sell wikibooks without having to worry about violating copyright laws. I'm not sure who came up with the notion that "free to sell" is an important value to protect, but it's high time we rewrote FUP and allowed CC-BY-NC ... in other words, get rid of "free to sell" as the standard and replace it with "free for any noncommercial use". Lev!vich 04:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Well, see, its not even about that. We want our content to be free of any obligations outside of recognition of contributions for all potential downstream reusers, including for modification, which includes commercial reusers. -NC fails that purpose. And that's from the WMF, not from en.wiki. --Masem (t) 05:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is probably a strong reminder where this is coming from. --Masem (t) 05:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that is the source of the problem, and the policy that would need to be changed. "Free to reuse for any purpose, including commercial purpose" is a principle that materially harms the development of the encyclopedia. If we got rid of that, we could have a much more relaxed fair use policy. Also, we could license works. I mean, we could have access to all of Getty images; imagine what that would do in terms of ability to illustrate articles with quality illustrations for our readers. It's not like we can't afford the licensing fee, it's just that we want to make everything on wikipedia sell-able. Why? I don't know why. To bring it back to OP's example about video game screenshots: there is no video game company in the world that would object to our putting up screenshots of their games on our articles; as many as we wanted. It's not a copyright problem, it's a licensing issue: for the license to be compatible, they have to basically give up all control over reproduction, including for profit by others, and of course no video game company will want to do that. But that's not necessary to have an encyclopedia--we don't have to require a CC-BY-SA license in order to put images on the website--that's just about the reuse, and even then, we could do CC-BY-NC, if we limited it to noncommercial reuse. But the WMF decided over a decade ago that it has to be "free to sell". This is one of the places where, IMO, "free knowledge movement" clashes directly with "building an encyclopedia". Lev!vich 05:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  I point to what the Resolution links to as the definition of "free" which has nothing to do with money, it is about freedom of speech per [1]. Do not presume that the WMF is requiring this because they want commercial entities to be able to make a profit off it; they want us to prefer works that have the widest possible reuse with the minimalist possible restrictions across the globe. And no, there's no conflict, the Resolution recognizes that we sometimes need to dip our hands into non-free content to properly illustrate the encyclopdia. It's just that we're far more restrictive than what most people would consider US fair use would allow, because we want to encourage editors use to free content first and foremost, and only turn to non-free if there's no other options. --Masem (t) 06:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Choosing that definition was, well, a choice. We shouldn't be using that definition. We shouldn't be preferring works with the widest possible reuse. Noncommercial reuse is wide enough. We shouldn't encourage editors to use free content first, because the best content is not free. We should prefer the best content for our readers' understanding when they read the encyclopedia. Everything else, including who can reuse the content, should be secondary to that. For an example of how our licensing policy hurts us, compare our picture of Frank Sinatra (and all the alternatives on the talk page) with what Getty Images has; that's the huge gap in quality. (And it is a clash: preferring the free-est content = free knowledge movement; preferring the best content = building encyclopedia.) Lev!vich 06:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's not a choice the WMF just made one day, but grew out of The Free Software Definition and the wider FOSS movement. Free (libre) means anyone can do anything as long as they agree to share the work and modifications with others under the same terms. Restricting commercial use is incompatible with that definition, and it's also counterproductive. Even Linux allows commercial use, and projects like Red Hat rely on the ability to sell enterprise services. But you can also just download it as Fedora (OS), because even if you sell Linux distros, you are legally required to allow the buyer to redistribute it under the same terms and they don't have to charge. That's why you can just download Android and modify its code to put on your own phone; the GPL portions of the Linux kernel require Google to make Android libre. The whole point of allowing commercial use is to entice corporations to use our Really Good Work and therefore require them to free the formerly proprietary work that they distribute with it. It's not an accident that commercial use is allowed. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  And legally speaking, it is impossible to relicense Wikipedia under CC-By-SA-NC because the GFDL Section 2 and CC-BY-SA section 4a both forbid adding any additional conditions or restrictions, and non-commercial is an additional restriction. You don't even have the right to fork it under CC-By-SA-NC. If you want a non-commercial encyclopedia, you have to start from scratch. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Under section 7a, we reserve the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, those new license terms must still be compatible with the old license terms. SportingFlyer T·C 10:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  You could (at least in theory) release new content under an incompatible license as long as the existing content remained available under the same (or a compatible) license and there was a way to determine which content is available under which license. For the last point, page history would work for article content, but templates, etc. might be complicated (at least without phab:36244/phab:2851). Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Brand new articles could be unencumbered, but edits to existing articles would be derivative works and still subject to existing licensing constraints. Templates would be an interesting question: as part of the tool chain to generate the HTML, they aren't part of the visible web site for those just trying to reuse the web pages. But for downloading the entire editing infrastructure, they would also have the same derivative work problem. isaacl (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• What they said; we might not be able to relicense past edits but we can license every edit from this point forward under a different license if we wanted to. Template code itself is probably too simple to be copyrightable at all; the content of a template, if it's copyrightable at all (short lists of basic facts and navigation aids aren't really copyrightable) would be treated the same as any other content. "Free libre" is the thinking of a free knowledge movement. I only care about "free gratis". (I bet our readers only care about "free gratis" and not "free libre" too. Libertarianism isn't very popular.) Lev!vich 16:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  An edit to an existing article can only modify it in accordance within the scope of its current licence. For Wikipedia, this means future modifications must be released on the same terms as the original creation. It's why all edits today must be dual-licensed under GFDL as well as CC-BY-SA 3.0: the licence of the older GFDL edits has to be preserved. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  ^{[citation needed]} We can license all contributions after 20 October 2020 as NC. Lev!vich 16:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not while respecting our current GFDL and CC-BY-SA requirements. Otherwise, anyone could clone Wikipedia and relicense it under whatever terms they chose. When CC-BY-SA was introduced, GFDL was preserved.

  As for templates, think of things like the citation template family and the infobox templates (and the underlying Lua modules). I think they clearly meet the originality threshold for copyright. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about relicensing existing content, I'm talking about licensing new content under a different license. For example, we could license text separately from images. We could decide tomorrow to allow CC-BY-NC images; literally the only thing preventing us is our policy choice to uphold the "libre" principle. I also think we could license new text as CC-BY-NC, and there are huge open questions of law regarding whether any of our licensing is effective anyway (e.g., is Wikipedia fixed in a tangible medium, are editors co-authors, does attribution to IPs satisfy the attribution requirements of CC-BY, and does our NOR policy prohibit us from reaching the threshold of originality, none of which TMK has yet been addressed by a court). But licensing aside, there is also our FUP, which we could relax, again, if we gave up the "libre" principle. The bottom line is that our fair use policy is not a legal requirement, it's a policy choice. Lev!vich 17:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not so much policy in terms of WP:PAG, but policy set beyond en.wiki.

  That said, NFCC is also considered a legal policy, as NFCC policy keeps the use of non-free media under the level of where fair use questions would likely start to be raised. It also requires editors to be accurate in how they document images so that we don't misappropriate copyrights (aka flickrwashing/etc.). It is why dealing with obvious NFCC problems is one of the few exceptions for edit warning. --Masem (t) 17:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, as various people including me have said, completely new articles could have a different license. Images are presently licensed separately from text, which is why we can include non-free images now. For better or worse, libre is a founding principle for the original Wikipedia community, so I believe the Wikimedia Foundation will continue to follow this tradition, and so any community interested in a non-commercial encyclopedia would have to create a new site. isaacl (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  It would not have to create a new site. The WMF works for the community, not the other way around. And yes, as Masem points out, WMF policy would have to be changed, not just enwiki policy, but see previous sentence. I would support any trustee who ran on a platform of changing the license policy so that we could license images from repositories like Getty, and then use some of our $130 million to negotiate a licensing arrangement with Getty (and/or other image repositories), so that we could use those high-quality images in our articles, which would be a great, great improvement to the encyclopedia, and to our core mission. But you're right that the prerequisite for change is editors deciding to make the change. Once that happens, everything else follows. The key point is that we are not required to have the policies that we have, we choose to have these policies. We could choose something else if we wanted to. Lev!vich 17:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Of course anything could happen. My feeling, though, is that there are certain founding principles that defined the original wikipedia community, and libre is one of them. To diverge would be akin to a takeover of the Wikipedia name by a different school of thought. It's happened to other communities, and could happen here, but I suspect resistance to it would make it difficult.

  Choosing to pay for a licence for non-redistributable image use would be antithetical to some, I think, but if the images could be cleanly separated from the libre text, it could gain some support. isaacl (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  You say "takeover", I say "evolution" :-) "The community", in practice, is a subset of humanity, but in theory, it's all of humanity, because this is the encyclopedia everyone can edit. The people who are editors today are not the same people who made these decisions 15-20 years ago; the community of yesterday makes up a tiny portion of the community of today. As Wikipedia grows, more and more people join, and "the Wikipedia community" becomes more and more like the world community, and Wikipedia values will shift closer and closer to world values. Sure, "libre" was an important value in the beginning among the internet libertarians and anarchists who launched the project, but it's not a value I share. I'm here because this is the official repository of human knowledge, our modern-day Library of Alexandria. My personal wiki-revelation came when Google and Siri started answering with Wikipedia; it had reached critical mass, there is no going back or replacing it or restarting it: this is how we are going to store our knowledge. Mark my words: the content of Wikipedia will outlast the copyright laws of the United States. The Wikipedia database will be copied more than the Bible. To me, "free" means "freely accessible". It's important to me that we have an accurate and complete encyclopedia that summarizes our most important knowledge, and a commons that holds our most important multimedia files, and a wikidata for structured data. And it's important to me that this knowledge is freely accessible to all humans, now and forevermore. That's why I registered an account. And I'm OK with spending donations on licensing fees, and on outsourcing software development (because let's face it, in-house ain't cutting it), and even on paying editors. If spending money helps build the library, then I'm in favor of it. The diversion point for our licensing policies is reuse. In my view, it doesn't matter if people can reuse our text and images so long as they can freely access it. And I wonder how many of our fellow humans are more interested in quality and "freely accessible" than in "libre" for reuse. Lev!vich 19:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Open source communities are very tetchy about this type of thing. The question is whether "freely accessible" should include "free to redistribute". Some people think anyone should be able to take on the responsibility of spreading knowledge to others, and this is enabled by having content that is free to redistribute. Regarding paying for content, some think this would discourage free contributions, thereby losing a large source of edits. The thing about evolving a brand is that with too drastic a change, it loses its previous meaning, and you're no farther ahead—you'd have been better off building a new brand from the start. isaacl (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  If you told our fellow humans that your scheme would forbid Google and Siri from giving them answers from Wikipedia, they would probably care a lot about the ability to reuse. Using your same logic, how many of our fellow humans--billions of whom don't have the internet and don't speak English--care about an online encyclopedia written in English? You're right that we're part of a global community, but you can't just appeal to ignorance and claim a silent majority supports you. If you seriously believe your proposal would be adopted by the global community, WMF legal, and the board of trustees, I suggest you make a proposal on Meta. If not, those internet libertarians and anarchists gave you the right to fork and start your own community. But our licenses were written to prevent exactly what you suggest from happening.

  Maybe Wikipedia will last longer than the US or its copyright law, but until copyright law disappears, you irrevocably agree to allow commercial reuse of your text every time you hit "publish changes". And that is a good thing. You seem concerned about the encyclopedia, but your desire for more pretty pictures damages our ability to reuse libre text from manuals, Wikia, other WMF projects, and some academic papers. Unless you can convince every WMF project to switch, we can no longer incorporate translated text into our existing articles, and other projects could not translate our work into their articles. That hurts the free knowledge movement far more than the lack of a Frank Sinatra picture they already saw on the Google search results page. We also reduce our potential funding sources since we get hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations like Apple, Google, and Microsoft who want to compensate us for allowing reuse of our content. Google even sponsors interns to work on our software and documentation during the summer. I would bet those funding sources dry up the moment we tell them they can't use our content, so I'm interested in where the additional $150,000+ is coming from to support your idea of paying photo licenses. Your proposal would cause lots of actual problems for the encyclopedia all because you believe we're too committed to freedom. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Every project is free to set its own rules. We are free to change the license at any time, and have done so in the past. We already allow some fair use, and it would not be a big deal to allow greater use of my own NC images. What I object to is people profiting off our volunteer work, and charging us for it. Why should we be paying Apple, Google, and Microsoft hundreds of thousands of dollars for what we provide for free? I understand it is all part of the Make America Great Again ("libre") movement in which freedom is defined as "free enterprise", but we don't have to buy into it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Technically yes, but per the resolution, the license has to be one that meets the above definition of free. So we could say "let's make everything PD", but we can't go CC-By-NC. --Masem (t) 22:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  The GFDL section 11 only allows relicensing to CC-BY-SA and only prior August 1, 2009. It was added by the GNU Foundation specifically for our CC-BY-SA relicensing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Geez, hostile to dissenting views much, Wugs? Do my heretical views discomfort you? :-P I don't have a "scheme" but changing our licensing policies does not mean preventing Google or Apple or anyone else from reusing our content. Adherence to copyright laws should be our only standard for fair use policy; there is no good reason to have a stricter policy and in fact it may be counterproductive for reasons discussed in that podcast linked above. What you call "pretty pictures" I call useful, educational images, video, and sound recording. Our licensing policies are not written in stone; we choose to allow people to profit off of our work, and in doing so, we hamper our work. We should make a different choice. (As for the $150k, are you kidding? That's like less than 0.5% of our annual surplus and less than 0.1% of our cash reserves.) Lev!vich 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm stating reality. If you want an explanation for why we are strict with non-free content, you got it. If you want a change to the global non-free content policy, this is not the place to make it and it is unlikely to be successful. If you don't like those answers, you have the right to fork, and you wouldn't be the first; even one of our co-founders forked the project when he disliked a choice the community made---it's not meant as a slight or to imply you're not welcome. You're free to dislike the policy, and even recommend changes, but you're not the first person to think that "commercial use" should not be part of "free", and it's naive to think that these were not intentional, well thought through plans. As I said above, fair use is a chiefly American concept, and the standards vary widely across countries (some don't even have it). If you want Wikipedia to be copied more than the Bible and available to as many people as possible, you need to make sure the 7 billion-ish people outside the United States can copy it. Therefore, making US fair use doctrine the be-all-and-end-all of our non-free content policy directly contradicts your goals of wide distribution of knowledge. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  You're free to dislike the policy, and even recommend changes ... Thanks, that's what I'm doing here :-) ... but you're not the first person to think that "commercial use" should not be part of "free" ... I'm not even the first person in this discussion to say it ... and it's naive to think that these were not intentional, well thought through plans. In all those posts above when I said "this is a choice we made, we should make a different choice", the word "choice" means "intentional". Yeah, it would be naïve to think this was not an intentional choice. As to "well thought out", sure, no one is doubting that, either. Rather, the thesis is that the intentional choice was made in pursuit of the wrong goal ("free to reuse") and we should make a different choice in pursuit of the right goal ("freely accessible"). So, no, I'm not being naïve. Perhaps you could consider the possibility that a different choice might also be well thought out. ... If you want Wikipedia to be copied more than the Bible and available to as many people as possible, you need to make sure the 7 billion-ish people outside the United States can copy it.  Already done - official and unofficial mirrors worldwide ... Therefore, making US fair use doctrine the be-all-and-end-all of our non-free content policy directly contradicts your goals of wide distribution of knowledge. That conclusion does not follow from the preceding sentences. Changing our licensing policies to remove the requirement of "free to reuse" will allow us to use more images, not fewer, and thus will further, not contradict, the goal of increasing free access to (quality) images.

  By the way, in the recent Esquire article, the author wrote of Wikipedia: It is ad-free, pop-up free, cookie-free, and free. "Free to reuse" didn't make the cut. Questioning the value of "free to reuse" is not really that radical; perhaps among the open-source community as isaac mentioned above, but not in the wider world. Lev!vich 17:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Changing the image policy to not favour free-to-reuse images, though, will hinder the deployment of official mirrors. In theory it could be done in a way that separates the mirrorable resuable content from the non-reusable, but I know nothing about the MediaWiki internals to speculate further. Perhaps you can find other interested editors to flesh out your idea further. isaacl (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  This, exactly. Right now, there are no limitations at all for reuse of any content outside that tagged as non-free for anyone in the rest of the world. If we went to -NC, while we'd be able to incorporate more material, we'd be restricting what could be reused, which is against the MediaWiki Foundation's goals. Basically, until MediaWiki decides it no longer wants to support free-as-in-speech distribution, asking us to change the license makes no sense. --Masem (t) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  It may have got lost in this lengthy discussion, but as I said somewhere above, the change to the licensing policy must be done by the WMF, and so what I'm planning to do to help bring about that change is to support trustees in the next election who support getting rid of "free for commercial reuse" as a foundation goal (at least for images), which would allow the WMF to modify licensing policies to allow -NC images, and to loosen the restrictions surrounding fair use of images, among other changes. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Lev!vich 18:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  As previously discussed, non-free images are already allowed, with guidance to meet the mission to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license" (elsewhere the guidance links to [2] to define free content license). I believe you'll have to find enough community members willing to change the mission, as I don't think any trustee candidates will want to make such a change without such support. I look forward to seeing the progress. isaacl (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  I look forward to asking trustee candidates what they think about "free for commercial reuse". The first step is to get the current trustees to actually hold elections. Lev!vich 19:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Of course, you're free to clone what we have on WP, to make your own free-as-in-beer WP, and outside everything from the date you clone, make all future contributions CC-non-commercial. Just that WMF requires the licensing model we use. --Masem (t) 17:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  I suppose you could have an NC policy for all new articles, and I think IT Wikipedia allows NC images. But I don't see how you can mix NC and non NC content in terms of text. If anyone took a couple of paragraphs that I had written and licensed CC-BY-SA, rewrote it and added a sentence or so, then licensed the new version CC-BY-SA-NC that would be a clear licensing breach. And I would be unimpressed if someone then wanted to charge someone for a "commercial" use of that material. ϢereSpielChequers 17:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think one of the benefits of current policy is it incentivizes or promotes the creation of freely licensed images. It is a real benefit to the world in spreading knowledge to have images of important people, places or things that can be used and reused across the globe for no fee. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

My removal of an addition to WP:PAID which asserts that we require volunteers to make a declaration that they are paid editors has itself been reverted, stating that I need consensus to remove it, even though there has been no demonstration of consensus to add it.

The addition was made with the edit summary "based on discussion at WT:COI", but no such discussion was linked to, nor have I been able to find it.

Is it en.Wikipedia policy that volunteers must make such a declaration, on pain of being blocked if they do not do so? If not, do we need a formal RfC to remove the claim? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion was here. – Teratix ₵ 10:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • And then at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 7#unpaid worker and on-loan staff. Fram (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • There is not consneus in that discussion for the wording applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • [EC] Thank you. So that's a three-person discussion headlined edits made during volunteer shifts by volunteers of NGO and 501(c)(3) organizations, in which the eventual change to the wording does not even appear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I have reverted [3] back to the uncontroversial version which simply said "Interns are considered employees for this purpose." The imposition of so-called "implicit consensus" is improper for a policy page with such sweeping ramifications and suddenly transmogrifies volunteers into the equivalent of paid employees, and all the bad faith that comes with it. A discussion with three people for a specific issue does not justify this massive shift in policy. Therefore, the status quo should be restored and a real RfC or other consultation should take place. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @Fuzheado: Odd that such a "sudden", "monumental" and "controversial" change went completely unremarked upon for over a year, then. Would you like to update WP:NOTBURO or otherwise codify your new requirement that changes to policy pages are not subject to the consensus policy and need a "real RfC"? – Joe (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
        • No, it's not odd - we have a confusing and messy policy thicket with similar-sounding but different pages scattered about. Folks who watch (and teach) WP:COI and WP:PAY on a regular basis are now finding a new stipulation on the secondary WP:PAID page, and in the last sentence of a subsection at that. One can be sympathetic to the plight of Wikipedia patrollers trying to combat undue influence here, but this is not the solution. The wording and its implications have been poorly considered, and any big change should not be made without wider explicit consensus. @Pigsonthewing: -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
        • If this significant change to our policy has the robust consensus of the wider community that Joe apparently claims it does, then he will have no trouble demonstrating that. It it seems, from the conversation to date, that it does not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Let's let the discussion play out for more than 24 hours before we pronounce the outcome, shall we? – Joe (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
            • Yet another false insinuation. I'm not "pronouncing the outcome", I'm inviting you to demonstrate consensus for your position, and noting that so far you have failed utterly to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• To clarify, the "addition" happened 18 months ago and hasn't been contested since, so I reverted Pigsonthewing on the basis that it at least has implicit consensus. And Teratix has now clarified that there was also a discussion beforehand. Either way, Andy, do you actually have a substantial objection to this text other than the fact that it wasn't attached to a "centralised discussion"? I hope we have not drifted so far away from WP:NOTCOURT that every change to a policy needs a formal RfC. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You mean do I object to us asserting "volunteers are deemed to be employees" and requiring them to declare that they are paid? Yes, of course I do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree there wasn't sufficient consensus for the edit, so Pigsonthewing's edit was correct. "Volunteers are considered employees" is blatantly absurd. Nemo 11:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• QUESTION: Are we agreed that editors working for NGOs and 501(c) orgs as volunteers have the same conflict of interest as paid staff, and thus must disclose that conflict when editing? If so, then we are simply debating the phrasing. If not, why not? Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you aware that the Wikimedia Foundation lists about 300,000 active editors as their volunteers? Nemo 16:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I think Nemo just won the argument :) Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• There's two key things here. One is, they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, and the other is that they're compensated. Compensation is more generic than being paid. Interns (even unpaid ones) are compensated by gaining experience, by getting an insider's view of how a specific business works, having the right to put the internship on their resume, making business connections, etc. This all falls under the "other valuable considerations" language that shows up in contracts. So, yes, if these things apply to you, you need to disclose that. It's incorrect to say you're being paid, but that's a nit. You're being compensated, that compensation is why you're editing, and we need to know that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Is it the same? No. Definitely not. In one scenario, my livelihood, career, health insurance, etc. is staked on making certain edits that I may be contractually obligated to make, or in case of a contractor there is an exchange premised on certain kinds of edits. In the other scenario (putting aside interns, which as far as I can tell isn't really part of this discussion), it's my choice whether or not I actually do what my supervisor tells me to do, I don't risk my income and well-being, and I'm not contractually obligated to do anything at all because nothing is exchanged. It's also going to be more likely with a non-profit or NGO that the kinds of edits one is directed to make aren't actually promotional but in the service about whatever cause that organization is working on (which can be good or not so good, of course, where it bleeds into advocacy).

  All of this said, I know full well that there are non-financial pressures or career-adjacent pressures to do what a volunteer supervisor tells you to do, and just the fact that we're talking about being directed to edit means there's obviously a huge COI that should be disclosed, but I wouldn't call it the same as a paid editor (if it is, we should reframe how we talk about the subject). IMO this belongs at WP:EXTERNALREL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Disregarding everything else, I'm pretty sure that most editors in American politics treat political campaign volunteers as if they are staff for the purposes of WP:COI. I can't recall treating such people as WP:PAID exactly, but we do expect disclosure if you are coordinating with a campaign regardless of your capacity as a staffer or volunteer. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yep. If somebody else is telling you what to do when you edit here, you should disclose that. For the editor, there's a difference between getting paid and not (I mean, ask any creative type whether "exposure" will pay the rent), but that doesn't diminish the importance of knowing when an editor is the mouthpiece of an organization. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • If somebody else is telling you what to do when you edit here, the you may have a CoI; but you are not necessarily paid; and are certainly not automatically "an employee". Furthermore, not every volunteer is or can be "told what to do". Please try to avid conflating disparate concepts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• I guess I have a similar view to Rhododendrites, in that the problem for me is whether volunteer work should be disclosed as paid, or as a COI. Both require disclosure. My concern is the creep we see here - initially, we pictured being paid as "recieving compensation" specifically for your edits. Then we extended that to include working in PR, even if you weren't specifically asked to edit WP. Adding volunteers means that even if you aren't being paid at all, you still need to disclose that you are being paid, which is getting a bit silly. Wouldn't it be better just to say that volunteers have a COI and should disclose under the COI requirements, and if you are being paid for your edits you have an additional incentive and advantage over other editors, so you should disclose under WP:PAID? Otherwise we get stuck in this situation of insisting that people who are not being compensatied or paid for their edits shoudl disclose that they are being compensated or paid for their edits, which just makes confusing policy. - Bilby (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bilby, I view WP:PAID as a subset of WP:COI. The essential thing is that you have some reason for editing other than an altruistic desire to improve the encyclopedia. I don't see any need to get all wound up with which label we stick on it, just that you disclose whatever it is.

  • I am editing Foo because I'm being paid to do so.
  • I am editing Foo because it's part of my duties as an intern
  • I am editing Foo because it's a school project
  • I am editing Foo because I support their political campaign
  • I am editing Foo because I am Foo

  etc. It's all very simple. Just tell us why you're editing on this subject. Don't worry about what label is attached to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is that the English Wikipedia community has never reached a consensus to require all editors with a conflict of interest to disclose it. Some people interpret conflict of interest quite broadly to encompass any employee of a company editing a topic related to the company. This casts quite a wide net for companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Google, General Electric, and so forth. Indeed, an employee may not even know they are editing a topic that is related to something their company is involved with. The mandatory requirement for an editor to disclose their paid contributions has a specific scope that was handed down by the Wikimedia Foundation, and can't really be considered a subset of a non-mandatory recommended practice.

  The issue at hand is if someone who fulfills the role of an employee that is directed to edit Wikipedia be required to disclose this relationship, even if they are not paid by the company? I appreciate that context is important. A non-profit, for example, might organize editathons for specific topic areas related to its mission that use regular volunteer staff. On the other hand, a "Friends of the Museum" fundraising non-profit might use volunteer staff to try to seed references to the museum into as many articles as possible. We need to think about whether or a not a bright-line rule on balance helps more than it hinders. On the third hand, the reverted text also included on-loan staff, and I hope this category will also be discussed. isaacl (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  But the wording under contention does not simply require "someone who fulfils the role of an employee... to disclose this relationship". It wrongly asserts that all volunteers are deemed employees, and requires some volunteers to declare - even when false - that they are paid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's fundamentally my problem as well. Under WP:COI we say that anyone with a COI should disclose. Which is fair enough. Under WP:Paid we say that anyone being compensated for editing WP on behalf of an employer must disclose as a paid editor. Which is also fair enough. What we shouldn't do is place people who are not being paid under WP:PAID - they are better handled through WP:COI. As to on-loan staff, I don't see how they differ from normal paid employees - if you are being subcontracted to a company, and that company requires you to edit WP on their behalf, then surely you are being compensated for your edits and fall under WP:PAID as is. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, the conflict of interest guideline is applicable to unpaid staff. At present, though, it does not require a mandatory disclosure. One case for on-loan staff is when a company purchases another but the official handover has not taken place yet. The purchased company may loan out its staff to the purchaser—no subcontracting relationship is established. (There can be legal constraints on subcontracting that make this undesirable for this situation.) The specific wording in the terms of use FAQ wasn't written to cover this case explicitly (it covers a client model), though the expanded description within Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure does cover it. isaacl (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I've added a link to this discussion at WT:PAID, and pinging participants in the original discussions of this change: @Graywalls, SlimVirgin, Isaacl, Andrew Davidson, Tryptofish, and Mariogom:. – Joe (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• The apparent contradiction here is only because we're stuck with the phrase "paid editors" – if we were developing this policy from scratch, probably "commissioned editors" or "financial COI" would be better language. But the stable version up to yesterday was a sensible and accurate summary of the spirit of both local policy and the WMF Terms of Use. Specifically, it closely follows meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure#What does the phrase "employer, client, and affiliation" mean?. We want people to disclose if they are editing on behalf of their employer; it's irrelevant what kind of compensation has been agreed between that employer and editor-employee. Since this is already expressed elsewhere in policy and the ToU, all Andy's change achieves it to make it harder for those with a COI to understand the policy and harder for us to enforce it. Do we really want to get sucked into having to ask people if they're compensated in cash or kind, if they get expenses, etc., relating to their edits? Or just be able to tell people simply that they shouldn't edit on behalf of their employer, and should disclose it if they do? – Joe (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The above is a confusing and contradictory rumination on terms and concepts. I'm not even sure where to start. First, it is not a sensible summary, as several folks have pointed out already. There is most definitely not consensus for a change to, "non-profit volunteers are considered employees."[4] It also doesn't even make logical sense. As Nemo_bis pointed out, is every single editor of Wikipedia, volunteering for the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, caught under this new provision and considered an employee with all the disclosure obligations that come with it? This is clearly a ridiculous thing to expect. That would mean every alumnus of a college or university donating their volunteer time to edit about their alma mater would now be considered an employee of that educational institution. What about volunteers editing about their favorite sports teams, performance troupe, or musical acts? The list goes on. Second, you claim the unilaterally-changed version closely follows the TOU FAQ, which states the employer is a "person or organization that is paying you compensation – money, goods, or services" but then the next sentence you say "it's irrelevant what kind of compensation has been agreed between that employer and editor-employee." This makes no sense. If the compensation is "irrelevant" then it is no longer an employer-employee relationship! The rest of the questions are therefore not answerable because of this poor logical footing. The bottom line is this - every person walks into Wikipedia with a basket full of biases, preferences, and potential COI. Their ethnicity, religion, geography, educational background, food preferences, allergies, etc. all affect how they approach and write about a subject. Trying to police the intent of editors down to this level is futile and unwise. That way madness lies. So what is the solution? I wish we still had the original construction of COI that existed for years (perhaps a decade) before it was replaced with the substandard lead sentence we have now. It used to say, brilliantly, "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."[5] For years, that was the basis of WP:COI. We had this exact sentence as the centerpiece in a slide deck for training new editors at edit-a-thons in the U.S., until it was changed (also rather unilaterally and unceremoniously), to what we have now. That wording is now lost to time and not found at all on WP:COI. The previous "advancing outside interests" wording is a more useful ideological prime directive versus the current overly-specific arbitrary enumeration of problem situations at WP:COI that ends in this near-useless nugget of advice: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest." I am sympathetic to admins and users fighting undisclosed paid editing. I used to be very active in that area. However, I fear fighting in the trenches has colored the perspective of those wanting the new wording. Instituting a wide-sweeping dragnet to portray volunteers as employees is not the solution. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    @Fuzheado: I would say the opposite: editors "in the trenches" trying to manage the significant disruption caused by paid editors have been trying to make practical changes to the COI guidelines for years, following the normal consensus-building processes we use with all policy, only to be obstructed by opinionated bystanders helicoptering in to argue about hypotheticals and supposed procedural deficiencies.

    Case in point: obviously the text does not apply to all Wikipedia editors. Has anyone ever actually thought that? We're not volunteers for the WMF, we have no contractual relationship with them, and we're not editing on their behalf. Our COI policy clearly states that it applies to people editing in connection to an external relationship, and it's in that context that "interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers" may also be considered to have a financial COI. – Joe (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    @Joe Roe: No it is not "obviously" at all - as I've explained above and as Pigsonthewing has said, supporters of this April 2019 change are mixing together a jumble of concepts from paid to COI, to employee to volunteer, to directed to voluntary. The "unpaid workers" clause is even suspect and should be re-considered because it is so vague and is part of this problem of scope-creep. Again, these are small changes in small corners of Wikipedia policy that don't get wider exposure or even fair notice to those of us doing new user training and interaction with the exact entities this would impact. These are not things that should be changed without wider notice and discussion. And your comment about "opinionated bystanders helicoptering" is insulting, against WP:AGF, and unbecoming an administrator and arbcom member. One should not need to qualify by using some arbitrary participation bar before being part of the consensus process, yet that seems to be the arrogant implication. It should not be necessary to trot out a CV to qualify for discussion. But in case you don't know - I was one of the principals that originated and authored WP:PRCOM in 2014 that has been a major factor for PR companies and paid editors to have a hands-off policy on editing Wikipedia. I have given presentations at Wikimania and SXSW on this, and have given seminars to hundreds of PR professionals on how to keep their hands off Wikipedia. With GLAM organizations like The Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, and many others, I've given dozens of talks on how to declare COI and properly participate while in the employ of these organizations. That even led to an award given to me by the U.S. National Archives. So this is not an area unfamiliar to me at all. What is the problem here is an overly broad, logically flawed construction in a proposed policy about what constitutes an "employee" relationship, which would have benefitted from wider exposure and discussion, rather than being the result of a small conversation within a group with a myopic a view of the situation. The issues are rather straightforward - an overzealous pursuit of rooting out COI behavior can result in rash, overbearing, and inconsistent policies that have far-reaching uncontemplated implications. It needs wider discussion and explicit consensus. Full stop. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    Okay, so can you provide some examples of where the Apr 2019–Sep 2020 wording impacted good faith new editors? That would greatly help take this discussion away from abstractions and into finding a policy that actually works, which I think is what we all want.

    One should not need to qualify by using some arbitrary participation bar before being part of the consensus process – I find this ironic, because you and Andy have nullified the consensus-building done by participants in the previous discussions (and all those who, like me, saw the change, thought it was sensible, and didn't feel the need to comment) on the seemingly arbitrary basis that it wasn't an RfC or VP discussion. The message you're sending is that ordinary, "myopic" editors working in COI patrolling can't just follow WP:PGCHANGE like everyone else, they have to get the approval of power editors with impressive outreach CVs and awards like yours. – Joe (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    It's rich for you to call out Andrew for providing his credentials, when he only did so in response to your pejorative implication that he or anyone else were "opinionated bystanders helicoptering in to argue about hypotheticals"; it's an even further stretch for you to falsely claim that him dosing so caries the meaning you state. You need to dial back such blatantly inappropriate rhetoric . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • "all Andy's change achieves" Please don't mis-frame my actions. I made no material change, and introduced no new concept. I simply reverted a single, specific change, which had introduced a new concept, because it did so without any apparent consensus. It is now emerging that indeed there is no consensus for the change that I reverted. The claim that my revert "make[s] it harder for those with a COI to understand the policy" is utterly bogus; as is the claim that the assertion "volunteers are deemed to be employees" is in "the spirit of both local policy and the WMF Terms of Use". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pigsonthewing: I don't think quibbling over the history of the page is helpful when it's laid out for everybody to see above. Nor is making pronouncements about the "emerging consensus" when the discussion is still ongoing and you are clearly involved. The change was discussed, it's the policy editors active in managing COI editing have been working with for the past 18 months, and your revert/edit/change/whatever you want to call it has altered that. I'm sorry that you didn't notice the discussion at the time, and if you think it needs a stronger consensus, fine, we can talk about it again here. But pretending we're back in April 2019 discussing a brand new proposal is bizarre. – Joe (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think you making false or misleading pronouncements, here or elsewhere, about my actions, or about our policies and the ToU, is helpful, and I intend to "quibble", as you dismiss it, any time you do so. For example, you imply that I "pronounce" an "emerging consensus", when what I actually said was "it is now emerging that indeed there is no consensus for the change that I reverted". I don't think the change simply needs stronger consensus, because there was no consensus for it at the time it was made, or in the discussion that followed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• The spirit of WP:PAID seems to me to be that if you are editing Wikipedia as part of your work, you should declare it. If that work is voluntary (e.g. you are the PR for a nonprofit or a political candidate or whatever), it is still an exercise of your professional skills within the scope of your job role to edit Wikipedia for a purpose that is orthogonal to our goals (promoting a thing rather than documenting it). You yourself may not be paid, but the beneficiary of the edits is using a valuable resource, your time, for its own ends. Charity laws vary around the world but if a US lawyer provides legal services free of charge to a political campaign, for example, the value of the time spent has to be declared by the campaign. On the other hand, if you volunteer in a charity shop and you edit the article on the charity, that is a COI, but of a minor and very limited kind, I'd say. So I would want to see clarification that if you are editing for pay, or as part of your job, whether paid or voluntary, then that's WP:PAID, otherwise it's WP:COI. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Roll back the creep The idea that volunteers are the same as employees is a legal nonsense and contrary to WP:NOTLAW, WP:NOLEGAL, WP:AGF and so forth. Making editors declare their volunteer activities and interests is contrary to WP:PRIVACY and the overall privacy policy. Here's some personal examples:

1. I spent time this week cleaning up a local river as a volunteer -- hauling out tyres, timber and a torrent of plastic junk. This activity was organised by the local authority in conjunction with a volunteer group. I have written articles about such activities, including beach cleaning and plogging. I don't make money doing this; it actually costs me money for equipment and wear and tear.
2. I attend an early morning exercise group, which is self-organised and voluntary. Their main routine seems to be notable but doesn't have an article yet and so I've been thinking of starting one. No money changes hands and there's an explicit ethos that the programme should be free.
3. I am a member of the London Cycling Campaign and take part in a variety of their voluntary activities. One hot topic lately is the Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme which limits motor vehicles to promote walking and cycling. That is quite notable but doesn't seem to have an article yet so again, I'm thinking of starting one.
4. I am a member of the National Trust which administers a variety of notable and historic properties and reserves. They depend heavily on voluntary activity and I might participate in particular events. I would then naturally want to write about notable aspects if they are missing from Wikipedia.
5. I wrote an article about the decline in insect populations. I have since participated in a variety of citizen science projects which are related to this -- making observations and doing conservation work

There's plenty more but you get the idea. Now, if I were to log and declare all such volunteer activities and interests in detail, then it would get to be quite a chore. I already do this for my various Wikimedia events. If I were to do this for everything, then stalkers would have a very detailed account of my location and movements. There are others who seem to dog and follow me and they do not seem to wish me well. You see, while most of these volunteer activities are quite congenial and comradely, Wikipedia is quite different. The environment here seems to foster suspicion and conflict so that feuds and vendettas are common. For example, I have been lately pilloried at WP:ANI where one specific complaint turned into a crowd scene as old conflicts going back ten years were brought up yet again by a succession of old antagonists. Numerous personal attacks were made on me -- direct accusations that I was a bad faith editor, a liar, a Nazi, an obsessive, a racist, a troll and more. I edit under my own name and am fairly open about my identity as I attend public events. But this experience does not encourage me to tell anyone anything, as there are clearly people who will try to use it as a stick to beat me.

Now I am fairly tough and can take it, just as I didn't mind getting muddy or wet while cleaning up the river. But many folk are not so foolhardy or resilient. We have a culture of anonymity to encourage volunteers to be brave and bold and forthcoming in their editing. We might instead have a different culture in which everyone has to identify themselves and provide details of their credentials and register of interests. I would be ok with that but suppose that there's many who wouldn't. What does not seem acceptable or workable is a confused and confusing half-way house in which anonymity and openness is mixed and muddled.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I don't think any of your examples would be impacted by the paid disclosure policy. You're talking about editing the subjects of your volunteer work—which is of course fine and to be encouraged—not the organisations that "employ" you to do it. As an analogy, someone who works for Alphabet Inc. is required to disclose if they want to edit Google, but not search engine. It's no different for unpaid employees. The creep is unfortunately necessary because we frequently encounter junior workers who have been directed to edit the pages of the organisations they work for, and in the sad times we live in, such junior positions are frequently unpaid (as interns, volunteers, "work experience" placements, etc.) But the lack of monetary compensation does not materially change the conflict of interest. As with all our policies, it's applied with common sense, and I've yet to see a real example of the kind of volunteers you and others raise being adversely impacted by it. – Joe (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

They are exactly what would be impacted by declaring that "volunteers are deemed to be employees". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That has been the policy for the last 18 months. Has it happened? – Joe (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It has never been Wikipedia's policy. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: Wikipedia's actual policy has never expected this (nor, as Nemo noted above, does it expect all of us WP:VOLUNTEERS to declare that we're volunteering for Wikipedia whenever we edit any article in Category:Wikipedia). This written page is not accurately describing the actual policy. Therefore, the written description needs to be adjusted. "Tweaked" might be more appropriate than "removed", but this page needs to line up with reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How about something like volunteers making edits under the supervision of an organization, or an agency is considered an agent and to be considered like an employee? So, a volunteer for the City asked to update the page on parks in the city using sources and contents guidelines provided by a coordinator is to be considered just as a paid public relations firm making the edit. Graywalls (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That might work, especially if it said something like "We know that volunteers aren't technically being paid, but for certain purposes we treat them the same..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Discussion moved from WP:VPM. –xeno^talk 12:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (well, move conflict) The full paragraph reads: "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure.". Those are TWO sentences, independent sentences where the second one is containing an 'if' clause. One: "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees.". OK, so if you want to bring this to the hypothetical, I am a volunteer editing Wikipedia, and that could possibly be construed as me being an 'employee' (I don't think I am, but whatever you want). Then comes the second sentence, where I will bold parts: "If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure.. For us, editing Wikipedia, that sentence should be read as "If they are directed [by WikiMedia] or expected [by WikiMedia] to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure [that they were directed or expected by WikiMedia to edit].. Am I being directed or expected by WikiMedia to edit Wikipedia as part of my tasks? No. Are most of the 30.000 volunteers that are active here? No. But if you are, you are requested to declare that. I have a daytime job. They pay my bills. I AM an employee. Are they directing or expecting me to edit? No. Do I have to declare? No. Regarding all the volunteers that are 'directed or expected to edit Wikipedia', OP is actually an example of that, they have that declaration on their userpage, as expected by the sentence that Potw tries to remove. The last post here is by User:Andrew Davidson. Yes, you are a volunteer in the first sentence. Are you by any of these 5 examples directed or expected to edit? There is for you no reason to declare those volunteer cases.

The problem that WP:PAID is trying to solve is that 'directed or expected to edit'. It is NOT saying "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees AND they must make a paid-contribution disclosure." If there is no 'direction' or 'expectation' , you are not under WP:PAID. If you are not editing pages to make yourself better from it (e.g. promoting your own company to advertise it), you are not bound by WP:COI.

So, back to the original question: "Volunteers must declare that they are paid?". No, they don't have to, except if they are directed or expected to edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You - like others in this discussion - have two matters conflated. Firstly, where I am paid (as a Wikimedian in Residence), I have a "paid-contribution disclosure". Secondly, where I might have a a CoI for my voluntary work, I declare that, as a potential CoI. Nowhere do I have a "a paid-contribution disclosure" for my volunteering, which is what the contested wording would make mandatory.

From time to time, I also teach volunteers to edit Wikipedia, who are accordingly expected to edit Wikipedia, and do so under my direction. They do not do so for pay, or for any other reward (though we might give them a cup of tea and a biscuit). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. When I attend an editathon, I will naturally follow the direction of the main organiser – following the set agenda, list of topics, timetable and so forth. My partner usually accompanies me at my volunteer events of all kinds. If she assists me with Wikipedia, this will usually be with some direction – requests to proof-read specific pages, take particular photos and so forth. There is no simple test for this and comparable issues in the world of work, such as IR35, have been fraught with difficulty. Such schemes are quite bureaucratic and complex but it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, Andrew Davidson, yes, but you are not directed by WikiMedia or whatever organisation what result to attain. You have no paid-contribution disclosure for volunteering, because they are not directing you to edit. Directing how to edit is something completely different than directing what to edit. I feel that you are mixing up being a volunteer, and being a volunteer who is directed to edit to attain a certain result. What I feel that this is trying to catch is that you go to an editathon where Jimbo Wales is telling you to edit his article to make sure that his article looks how he wants it to look. That is something completely different than Jimbo Wales telling you to take the books in the library and create some articles on the women that are described in the books.

So, no, you do not need a paid-contribution disclosure for volunteering. Well, only if that organisation is directing you to make the organisation look better. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• This has gotten a bit messy, split between misunderstandings, specific language, and ideals. What is clear is that these matters are not uncontroversial. Perhaps the best course of action is to run an RfC over a particular principle: "Is editing at the direction as someone else the same as paid editing, and should it be subject to the same requirements?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• That wording would not work. As a simple counter-example, consider WP:MENTORSHIP or a review for WP:GA/WP:FA. Typically, in such interactions, one editor directs another – pointing out an issue that needs fixing or a gap that needs filling. Our content is typically a team effort in which many editors contribute and copy-edit. In good teamwork, there is often leadership and communication. And if team members find the work rewarding in some way then this is not a problem; quite the contrary.

The problem with all this stuff is that it confuses inputs and outputs. It tries to micromanage the inputs -- the people that are editing and the way that they go about it. But what matters is the output -- the content which results. If the output is neutral and accurate then it should not matter how this is done.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, those are not counter-examples. What we are talking about is not pointing out issues, what we are talking about is telling someone to make sure that the subject is presented in the best possible light, and to remove anything negative. You can try to ignore that spamming, SEO and blatant self-promotion doesn’t exist, but people will go at great length to promote their business. You enable the excuse, which they will gladly use, and have gladly used: ‘it wasn’t me, it was the volunteer who did it. I did not pay him anything.’ And if the result is good, then it doesn’t matter, but with paid editors the goal is not to have a good result. Again, telling someone how to edit is not the same as telling someone to write something positive about a subject so you profit from it. The first volunteer doesn’t have anything to declare, and the ‘instructed’ editor has nothing to loose, the latter has a COI, and a ‘paid’ interest to follow the instructions of the person who instructs them (at the cost of bad gradings for interns, loss of position or just a bad time while being there). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I thank Joe for pinging me, and that ping is the only reason I'm commenting here. I've read the discussion above. I think that arguing over an edit war, or over whether or not someone is incorrectly characterizing the intent of an edit, or over whether or not something is compensation, is the wrong way to approach the question. Instead, it would be useful to see some recent examples of disagreements about editors who might have failed to disclose something, and look at how the disputed language would play into that. If we aren't seeing problems that the added language addresses, then the added language may not be needed – but if we have been encountering such problems, then we should craft language to address that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• All of this could be solved by splitting out to a separate policy what needs to be done for editors who are actually getting paid to put content on Wikipedia, and those who are in some other way affiliated with an organization for which they are putting content on Wikipedia. There are fairly clear conceivable cases where the latter is still problematic. BD2412 T 22:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  In other words, WP:PAID (editors who are actually getting paid to put content on Wikipedia) v. WP:COI (those who are in some other way affiliated with an organization for which they are putting content on Wikipedia)? Lev!vich 01:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  No separate policies, please. We have PAID, we have COI, we don't need a 3rd type of policy too. It's just CREEP, and it's confusing. Wikipedians with experience of policies I think underestimate how confusing this jumble is to new editors. The more policies we add, especially overlapping ones, the less chance any of them will be read or followed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose the proposed addition as written. It's overly broad. Let's use common sense. I would support a return to the way it was written years ago, mentioned above. Benjamin (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Andy's edit, i.e., reverting the addition/change. Changes to policy pages should follow the policy for making changes to policy pages (WP:PGCHANGE). As to the substance of the issue, it's what XOR said: If somebody else is telling you what to do when you edit here, you should disclose that. The sine qua non of WP:PAID and WP:COI is actually WP:PROXYING editing. The question is: are you making edits of your own volition, because you're a volunteer editor and you think your edits improve the encyclopedia, or are you making edits because someone is telling you to? The reason why an editor is making edits at the behest of someone else--whether it's because the person is their uncle (WP:COI), or because they're being paid (WP:PAID), is rather irrelevant--the point is, a paid editor, or an intern, or a volunteer, or a family member, is making edits at the behest of someone else (the employer/principal/whatever), who themselves has a COI from editing the topic. Thus, the proxy also has a COI, which should be disclosed. Anyone who edits at the direction of someone else, whether it's for pay or not, should disclose that. Lev!vich 03:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Re substance, I also disagree volunteers are under PAID. However, unpaid employees (for lack of a better word) could be considered to apply under PAID. This would include unpaid interns, or 'volunteers' otherwise directed by an employer to specifically edit Wikipedia. The point of PAID is not retribution, it addresses a real problem and a niche, problematic case of COI editing. These two situations I mentioned are within the realm of what PAID intends to solve. The second question, which is often ignored in these discussions, is of enforcement. Any admin can, I think, apply some discretion in this matter. Otherwise, any editor would be able to get out of a UPE block by saying "my employer doesn't pay me". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• I strongly disapprove of classing volunteers in general as paid employees. I do not think the discussions linked at the start of this thread form a sufficient consensus for the change, and it should not have been made without wider discussion, including an announcement at CENT. At least the first of those discussion was solely focused on people who are required to do "volunteer" work as part of a degree or similar program. That is a much narrower and more specific situation, and a change to the paid contribution rule narrowly focused on such situations might well gain consensus, although even that should have wider discussion. But that discussion in no way supports the more general statement added to the policy page. This change is clearly not uncontroversial. I was not previously aware of it. I approve of Andy's revert of this change, and it should stay reverted until and unless a formal RfC develops a clear consensus to change it. I stand ready to revert any such change until such a consensus is demonstrated. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• The amendment made 18 months ago does not change the rules, it just avoids a "point of misunderstanding" and at no point, did Wikipedia have a rule affirming volunteer work is excluded from being considered paid editing. The underlying rules (emphasis highlighted by me) "If you receive, or expect to receive, 'compensation' for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. It does not matter whether you are paid directly by the client, or paid indirectly by an employer on behalf of the client." The compensation does not have to be money or something of monetary value. From my own observations, 501c3/NGO promotional editing has been a major concern. Removing volunteers from being considered as paid would give 501c3s, government agencies, and other groups that have volunteers give carte blanche pass to use volunteers as an instrument of public relations and marketing editing. A museum uploading pictures of donated artifiacts, then having volunteers write about the artifact in dispassionate, unconnected way is an entirely different thing from having them create or edit on the 501c3's, its board members or executive director. I think @Doc James: made similar point somewhere. Just as a reference, in some cases, even government agencies consider volunteering equivalent of work: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements "Work can be for pay, for goods or services (for something other than money), unpaid, or as a volunteer" Graywalls (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The claim that "The amendment made 18 months ago does not change the rules" is false; the claim made in that edit, that it was Wikipedia policy that "volunteers, are deemed to be employees", is is false (just as it is false to claim that that is currently, or has ever been, policy). The clam that "If [volunteers] are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure", likewise. I made the point above that "If this significant change to our policy has the robust consensus of the wider community that Joe apparently claims it does, then he will have no trouble demonstrating that." Neither Joe or you, nor indeed anybody else, have so far demonstrated any such consensus. You might also like to note that 501c3 is not applicable in 205 of the 206 sovereign states that are covered by the policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C and Bri:, as someone mentioned in this sign post you have an interest regarding COI and public relations editing concerns and thought you might have some words to offer here. Graywalls (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of this discussion but had not followed it closely and wouldn't feel right about weighing in at this time. Frankly the vast majority of the issues I've seen are around commercial media, brands or products, and executive and entertainment BLPs. Fine tuning policy around non-profits is way in the back of my mind. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think this one is honestly a little difficult because "volunteer" can mean lots of different things. I do not support a blanket rule on all volunteers having to disclose in all cases. For instance, if you go door-to-door for the Conservative Party in the 2019 UK general election and edit MP-related topics, expecting you to self-disclose that is just too onerus and bureaucratic (and maybe reveals more personal information than you want to). But if you're essentially a full-time high-up volunteer on Pete Buttigieg's campaign and you are editing pages about his rivals then self-disclosure is very necessary. I think the point here should be that you need to self-disclose if your edits relate to your financial interests, career interests or professional reputation, narrowly construed. (We all have financial interests in certain political outcomes, or might gain professional reputation by listing our Wikipedia work on our CVs etc. Use common sense.) The other major reason is if you have been formally directed or feel pressure by any organisation, profit or non-profit, to edit particular content on Wikipedia.
  So I don't agree with the text that is in contention here and other than its removal, I don't see any particular part of our COI/PAID policies which need changing in regards to volunteers. I would also like to thank Andrew Davidson for his comment as I think it's very useful to this discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Pigsonthewing that the wording was problematic. There are many levels of "volunteering" and certainly not all of them should be equated with being an employee and being a paid editor (per Nemo's point that we are all volunteers). The wording should emphasize that disclosure is about actual substantial conflicts of interest (not just getting paid). Doing one-time or low-level volunteer work usually wouldn't meet that threshold. Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• This is an example of request edit where COI disclosure is warranted, and if directly editing was to occur without disclosure, it ought to be considered as a UPE. Just by the virtue of the way the organization is structured, it is able to have volunteers where as if it was a non 501c organization; it would make it a labor law violation. Such a bureaucratic difference shouldn't give these organizations a favorable interpretation in the ability to make undisclosed editing without being considered UPE. I would support rewording the interpretation to "considered as if they're employees" and that interpretation is correct in the spirit of paid editing disclosure. It would specifically cover volunteers editing Wikipedia at the instruction/suggestion/direction of volunteer coordinator; where their subordination may have consideration (expectation of references, maintenance of freedom (court mandated volunteer, etc), payment (many employers these days authorize employees time to go volunteer on the clock for a certain amount every month see https://www.npr.org/2013/08/14/211961622/more-companies-encourage-workers-to-volunteer-on-the-clock). Graywalls (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The example you give (which once again, seems to depend on the law of just one of the 206 sovereign states to which the policy in question applies) may perhaps be an example of what you say it is, but is not proof that all volunteers are paid, nor a reason why they should declare that they are, in that or any other country. And it certainly does not entitle us to deem nor consider them all to be employees. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Regardless of laws in different country, the same principle applies. The example shows how a simple difference in the organization's structuring can make it appear as they're doing it as a "volunteer". The example of wiki editors as mentioned by user Nemo_bis is quite different from for example fund raising volunteers making edits to Wikipedia to encourage the fund raising of the organization for which they're trying to raise funds for. Graywalls (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • How is an example of a volunteer disclosing a conflict of interest evidence of anything related to undisclosed paid editing? Even if this volunteer is paid (which we have no evidence of) that does not make them an employee, nor does it mean all volunteers are paid let alone that all (or any other) volunteers are employees, or even that all employees who edit are paid to edit. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There being no consensus for its additon, I have again just reverted the insertion of the wording discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse this action. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am rephrasing the question to remove the issues of payment or “employee” status from the discussion. Please focus purely on the potential for a conflict of interest when someone edits on behalf of an organization (especially in articles directly related to that orgsnization). Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of their volunteering. If they help out on a casual basis once in a while by making teas and coffees, then there is unlikely to be any more or less COI than a member of the public who regularly donates to the cause but doesn't volunteer has. If they represent the organisation at conference stand, handing out publicity material, signing up donors, etc. then yes that's a clear conflict of interest that should be declared. The only thing that matters here is whether the person has a conflict of interest that means that either (a) they cannot accurately judge what is and is not neutral, and/or (b) they are motivated to introduce and/or preserve bias in the article. "Volunteer" is far too broad a term to be at all useful in determining this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

People who is acting under the direction of a volunteer coordinator and whose behaviors can affect their references should be considered as receiving "consideration". "volunteer board members" should also be treated *as if they're* employees. Graywalls (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an impressive mix of too broad and so narrow as to be pointless. If you have a conflict of interest then you should declare that conflict of interest, why you have a conflict of interest is irrelevant >99% of the time. Not everyone with a COI related to volunteering is acting under the direction of anybody else (whether that other person is a volunteer coordinator or in some other role) and not everyone who does act under such a person has a COI (many, possibly most, do, but that isn't everyone). Being on the board of a charity means a whole lot of different things depending on the size and nature of the charity, the person's role on the board, and the jurisdiction in which the charity operates. Volunteers on the board of major international charities likely have many similarities to employees, volunteers on the board of a small local charity do not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_clarification_(HGO_Trust) Another example of editing that should more or less be considered the same as "paid". This user was doing what amounts to public relations/reputation management editing wearing a "volunteer charity org chair" hat Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to discuss another editor, (in this case User:Smerus), have the courtesy to ping them. I note that your misrepresentations of the circumstances in the linked discussion have had to be corrected. There is no element of WP:PAID in the editing discussed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Andy for bringing this thread to my attention. The circumstances involved may be relevant to this discussion. I am chair of a registered UK charity HGO Trust which organizes opera productions in London to advance young singers at the start of their professional careers. I and the committee running HGO are unpaid, and the organization has no premises, employees or overheads. We have been fortunate that our work has drawn critical attention and sometimes praise. I am conscious as a WP editor of many years of COI and the article contains an appropriate declaration on my behalf. I have sought to keep the article up to date in the two years since I became involved with HGO and have (I think) scrupulously avoided any comment or value judgements of my own. Principally my intention has been to keep the article updated about new productions and events, always supported by third-party citations, which have come from recognized online and printed newspapers and opera journals. I do not believe that this 'amounts to public relations/reputation management editing wearing a "volunteer charity org chair" hat', and confess to be rather hurt (although of course I recognize that a WP editor must have a thick skin) that my behaviour has been described in this way. I sought to update information, not to 'manage HGO's reputation'. The intervention of the editor who has used this description arose from a good faith enquiry by myself to the COI noticeboard to try to determine exactly what I could reasonably edit in the article, and I have to say I did not anticipate a backlash of this nature. I have been advised to use an update template on the talk page requesting passing editors to consider any future edits I may wish to make, but of course there is no guarantee that this method would generate the necessary response in a reasonable time, or indeed ever. With two productions a year (when COVID isn't around) the article would soon become out of date. I do beleve that my updating the article from time to time, as long as I continue to avoid any value judgements, and use third-party citations, would be acceptable within the spirit of WP, and I would welcome editor's opinions on this. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

I am a loyal user (and, over the years, have made a number of small editing contributions). I greatly value the project.

I am writing to express my concerns about what-seems recent UX developments for Wikipedia that I feel are severely diminishing the value of the work.

In particular I feel the practice of providing pop-up's that mostly occur by inadvertence on the part of users --- is destroying the user experience of using Wikipedia --- and should be eliminated.

These pop-ups, triggered by hovering, are in my opinion, a severe annoyance and greatly degrades the experience of reading articles.

In short, this design modification is a UX disaster.

Therefore I urge you to remove this functionality as a default. If individual users wish to have this feature --- they could opt to switch it on.

Sincerely,

     Rob

P.S. Regarding "If you still wish to continue with your edit, you may hit "Save page" again below, and it will be submitted as is."

I did not see any "Save page".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.63.218 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The change in question was made a very long time ago and seems otherwise to have been appreciated from what design discussion I saw in the wild. I make use of it every day, and I use the watered down version that unregistered editors see rather than the older, not-as-pretty, more-powerful popups. --Izno (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If you click the ⚙ (gear settings), you can turn it off. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Re the message about the "Save page" link: that was part of a message about an edit filter at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-email which dates from before the changeover of the button name, and I've fixed it. Graham87 07:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this. Story on negative economic performance was removed earlier today from Portal:Current_events/2020_October_26 and replaced with story about Alibaba and how wealthy owner is. Appears to be using Wikipedia for bragging rights. View history and note how revision is surrounded by edits from editor that added the Alibaba story. Have reverted edit and made Talk post about issue. However, this appears serious in my opinion, as Wikipedia Current Events is now viewed as influential enough, that it needs to be manipulated to influence market performance with limited notes like ("not significant"). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2020_October_26&action=history Araesmojo (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Araesmojo, it looks like the Current events noticeboard is a good place for that discussion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Series on Examples of title suppression 1
  • (Redirected from Criticism of Pakistan) → Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Criticism of Pakistan = Anti-Pakistan sentiment ?

• • (Redirected from Criticism of hinduism)→ Anti-Hindu sentiment

Criticism of Hinduism = Anti-Hindu sentiment ?

?

Bookku (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion at WP:TFD regarding the use of the template {{OW}} . That dispute really ended in the the nominator just giving his perspective on how the template should be used. The nominator Dennis Brown expressed the concern that the template was being used on legitamate user's talk pages, and they would usually have trouble removing it. The discussion largely resulted in it being made clear that OW is a very useful template to use on IP talk pages. Regarding use of the template on IP talk pages, some of the users in the discussion (specifically BD2412) stated that the template was used to get rid of link load. Some main questions that were asked were:

1. How should the template be used?
2. Should the template be used in a way that respects the ownership of the talk page?

I propose that this issue of how OW and similar templates be used be detailed in actual policy. Although we already hav WP:OLDIP, I think there is some ambiguoity as to where it should be used. I think Guy Macon recommended a discussion start here. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if we need to change policy, but it would be good to get a consensus on the verbiage on the template. Something like "Normally, this template should NOT be used on a registered user's page, and should be used for IP talk pages only. Using it on a registered user's page may be construed as incivil in some circumstances.". Honestly, I think simplicity is key (in all things). I don't want to say "MUST NOT", although I can't see a situation where it makes sense to use it on a registered user's page. Having that discussion here should be fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks, P,TO 19104. The purpose of {{OW}} is to replace the content on long dormant user-talk pages with a notice indicating that the content previously on the page can be found in its edit history. This serves a number of functions, primarily directed to IP talk pages. Primarily, it cleans up the "What links here" page so that those looking to clean up incorrect incoming links in various namespaces can more easily see what is causing odd links to show up. A secondary benefit is that if an IP talk page is long abandoned, a new editor coincidentally editing from that address won't see anything jarring if they end up at the page. It has also been used on the pages of long-abandoned registered editors (i.e., those who made a handful of edits many years ago, got a handful of warnings, and then quit and never came back). I would strongly agree that it should not be used on the page of any active editor. BD2412 T 01:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • When you write "The purpose of {{OW}} is..." are you describing a policy or how you personally would like it to be used? If it is an existing policy or something already in the usage instructions, where is this documented? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I am describing the purpose for which it is intended. Apparently this needs to be codified somewhere in policy. BD2412 T 02:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• I Oppose expanding the instructions so that this template may only be used on long dormant user talk pages. There are a multitude of templates and other messages that someone may object to having on their talk page. The current policy is that users are free to remove (with a few exceptions) any template or other comment from their talk page, and the current policy is that such removals should not be reverted. The current policy is not broken and does not need to be fixed. There are an infinite number of unwanted messages that particular editors might object to. There is no point in playing Whac-A-Mole by making special rules for some of them.

In addition, it is not an established fact that no active editor could possibly welcome an {{ow}} template. It may very well be welcome. I say that we should leave it to the editor who's talk page it is. If they like the template they can leave it. If they don't like it they can delete it.

I propose adding the following to the template instructions for clarity:

"The {{ow}} template, like most material on user talk pages, should not be re-added if the user deletes it".

That is sufficient. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

An RfC has started relating to WP:NMUSICIAN criterion #6. You are invited to participate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTSEVENT has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering why most vital articles are in bad quality (some are really bad in quality even though they are vital information)? Instead, most GAs and FAs are about esoteric subjects. We currently have about 42k quality articles total (GAs + FAs). Our mission (Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5) on vital articles would be almost done by now if we focus exclusively on vital articles. Vital articles are very important and a strong foundation of knowledge for future generations to learn upon. Why most editors opt to spend countless hours working on esoteric articles instead of vital articles? I mean those hundreds of hours they spent could be spent on vital articles. Same effort but better result for the future (knowledge is power and priceless). It makes more sense that way. 14.186.29.93 (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mainly because people work on things that interest them, and because there isn't a consensus that Wikipedia:Vital articles is in fact a list of articles that every Wikipedian should consider important (in fact, I don't think there is a consensus that any particular Wikipedia article is more important than another) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You are suggesting that users would spend the same amount of time working on subjects outside of what they find interesting. Sometimes larger articles, specifically those with lots of editors are harder to improve to GA standard. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Aka we are a volunteer project, editors work on what they want to work on. We can encourage editors towards these important projects but we can't force that. --Masem (t) 14:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

They're the most difficult to improve, especially the first three levels. Lev!vich 15:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Because the vital articles list is utterly superfluous to the goals of Wikipedia and its editors.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You're looking for File:Fun or Functional? The Misalignment Between Content Quality and Popularity in Wikipedia (WMF Research Showcase 2015-09-16).pdf. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mainly because it's harder to write a good article on a big, general topic than a small, specific one, I think. Johnbod has a good essay on this phenomenon: User:Johnbod/Content and coverage; where are we 10 years into the project?. – Joe (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)]

I've marked Wikipedia:Vital articles and its sub-pages with {{essay}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I ran into them once, was confused, when I understood it couldn't understand why it's worthwhile spending time on. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been reverted in every case, by User:Sdkb, with an edit summary of "whatever the VA lists are, they're certainly not essays". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, they aren't technically "essays" as much as efforts that haven't gained much traction outside of their participants. "Pet projects" is the closest term that comes to mind, but we don't have {{pet project}} and it's a derogatory term so... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually the project was really big in the early days, & had general buy-in up to perhaps 2008. A "historic" label would be more appropriate. Now there is only a handful of editors debating the composition of the lists, mostly at the lowest level. They've been told several times that this now doesn't matter in the slightest, but .... Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact I see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 has died down a lot since I last looked, finally. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

They're project pages under the aegis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles. Normally such pages would be subpages of the corresponding WikiProject page. In this case, perhaps WikiProject banners could be placed on them to more clearly identify their relationship. isaacl (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the word "essay", the full text of the template is:

What part of that doesn't apply? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"This is an XXXX." What follows that sentence isn't a definition of "essay", it's about the difference between an essay and a policy or guideline. Vital is not an essay, though, it's a project page, so I agree with the reversion. No one would confuse vital for a PAG, so the essay tag is not helpful or accurate. There isn't a problem here that requires fixing. Lev!vich 16:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The question was "What part of that doesn't apply?". It clearly is something, so that applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The answer was "This is an XXXX." It is a something, and if "XXXX" were "something", then it would apply, but you didn't add the {{something}} tag, you added the {{essay}} tag, and if "XXXX" is "essay", then "This is an essay" doesn't apply, because the Vital lists are not (nor purporting be) essays. They are, as others have said, project pages. Working pages. The Vital lists are no more an essay than ARS's Rescue List, or a project's delsort list. Lev!vich 18:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

So you're answering a question that wasn't asked. Nonetheless, it seems that, apart from your objection to the word "essay", we agree that every other word in the template applies to these pages. Right? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed many pages in Wikipedia project space that have opinions or advice that may or may not reflect majority views, and are not articles, policies, nor guidelines (this very page, for instance, or the vital articles lists). It wouldn't be accurate, though, to call them all essays. Both A and E can have characteristics B, C, and D, without being equal. (In this particular case, the listed attributes aren't really the defining aspects of essays.) If there's agreement to highlight those or any other attributes, that can be done with a hand-rolled information box if necessary. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly; in the quoted passage, "XXXX" is the most important word, because, being preceded by the words "this is an", "XXXX" defines what the page is. So asking, other than the word 'essay', what's the difference?, is a bit like asking, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? Lev!vich 17:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, given the substantial usage and transclusions of {{t|Vital article}} and related templates I think saying these are not widely accepted is perhaps not accurate. The importance of them, as worded on the page, may not be widely accepted but the concept of them seems to be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

As a template added to article talk pages, {{Vital article}} is akin to a WikiProject banner—no one is likely to remove it and thus interfere with those interested in vital articles. I don't see its use as an indication of anything more than "this is something the project uses to mark articles within its scope". isaacl (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• That many of the "vital articles" are low quality is part of the point of the reason for having the project. It's not a showcase of our best work but a list of topics that should be high quality (a worklist). I've always thought the vital articles project was an interesting idea, as much as I've never liked the name (what is an article that isn't vital? expendable?). It's a good idea to draw attention to opportunities for improvement among our high-level and/or high-traffic articles (recognizing that neither of these overlap entirely with vital articles). Where I think it goes off the rails a bit is the lower levels, like the level 5 that was only added a few years ago. Not necessarily a bad idea, but at this point the execution seems like it's going to come down to the knowledge/availability of information to a small number of editors. Maybe what's needed is a renewed effort to shore up the quality of these fundamental topics, and a concerted drive to focus on them. What better time than the 20th anniversary of the site next year? Maybe the Wikicup could include extra incentives for vital articles or something? Seems worth giving another shot rather than marking historical, certainly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  What is high level article? 14.186.26.232 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where this idea that the Vital articles project lacks community support is coming from—it's reasonably active by modern WikiProject standards, with plenty enough contributors to determine consensus in surveys, and a proposal to abolish it at VPR a few months ago was so out of line with consensus it was SNOW-closed. My main qualm with the project is that the vast majority of participant energy seems to be used up debating which level certain articles belong at, a task of highly marginal utility, while many other important tasks remain inadequately addressed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Along the lines of your second sentence, my impression of VA is that it's mostly a place to argue about why what's important to me is more important than what's important to you. I don't think that's of much identifiable benefit to the encyclopedia. But it also is of no great harm to the encyclopedia, so whatever.
    In response to @14.186.29.93: feel free to start your own fork of Wikipedia, and pay editors to work on "vital articles". As long as it's a volunteer project, we'll work on whatever the **** we want to. Thank you, so much. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

    Just chill out bro. I'm just asking a question out of curiosity (perhaps someone can come up with a way to encourage people to work on vital articles). I know very well it's a volunteer project, and yes, that means everyone can work on whatever they want to. 2402:800:4315:2561:8D9F:9307:4556:58CF (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well at the moment there's a huge difference between lists 1–3 and 4–5. Lists 1–3 have been debated endlessly and are fairly solid in terms of being continuously tweaked and evened out, the other two are rather underdeveloped. This extends to a larger site-wide problem of editors being hesitant to work on big topics or "core biographies" because of either the massive literature they have, or just the intimidation from working on such a huge topic. Of course this hasn't stopped some editors in topics such as astronomy or biology, where some of their best articles are the huge topics, and to a lesser extent historical figures and scientific ones – as you can tell from the V3 list. Literature (+literary figures), philosophy (+philosophical figures), explorers, tools etc. seem to mostly suffer this fate, and for good reason, it's a lot to ask of an editor to try and bring Engine or Goethe to FA, let alone someone like Kant or Plato. I think the strength in VA project would lie in collaboration with experts in different fields on the site working on these big topics one by one. I've thought about trying to repopularize the project myself by proposing such a solution but I feel like I don't have enough time to right now, maybe in the future. Aza24 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Kant and Plato are FAs in other Wikipedia languages. I don't understand why editors (in English Wikipedia) are more hesitate to spend time to improve them but spend hundreds of hours on esoteric articles? 2402:800:4315:2561:8D9F:9307:4556:58CF (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  FA is easier to pass on every other project. (I know of no exception to that rule, but I'm sure there's at least one.) --Izno (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  What Izno said, just glancing at the three Kant FAs I see, they have barely any inline citations, not even enough to meet B class criteria on English WP. The German FA Plato looks better but seems like more than half of the inline citations are directly from Plato's books (primary sources) which also wouldn't meet B class criteria. At the moment I know of a couple bigger projects in the works, I've been talking to a user about their work on the Odyssey which they plan to get to get to FA status eventually (they just got it to GA); there's another user who is working on Beethoven for his anniversary and has already rewritten the life section; there is an FA team I was assisting with Abraham Lincoln, but they seem to have somewhat dissolved for the moment; I am slowly working on Leonardo da Vinci, and I recently got enough sources to do so (admittedly though all I have done so far is tidy up various things); there's also a group of users that go through various well known animals and get them to FA. So there is action being taken address vital articles, but they are always slow processes, and I have feeling because of the many unaddressed massive topics remaining it may seem like no work is being done, even when there is. Whether this is enough is up for debate of course and most of the time it doesn't seem to be connected to the VA project. I have often wondered why more active projects like MILHIST don't get together and bring WW1 and 2 to FA quality (especially since they are relatively close) but obviously that is easier said than done. Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  See also WP:SOFIXIT. You're more than welcomed to try and bring Kant and Plato to FA-levels of quality! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  A rather passive aggressive message that I'm not sure was directed at me but I'm not complaining here, merely observing. Either way, "being bold" on Kant or Plato doesn't really make sense for a non-subject matter expert like myself. I know that if I were to put down everything I'm doing and work on Kant it would take at least a couple years just to improve his sub articles (His Criiques, Ethics, Kantianism etc.) and have a solid enough understanding to be able summarize such a giant in philosophy into his own article to FA quality (and in layman's terms), let alone go through the massive literature by not only him but by so many others about him. Aza24 (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Directed at the original IP, and really anyone that bemoans that Wikipedians should focus on X area instead of Y area. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Understood, and agreed. This is by no means a new complaint after all, since I'm sure it's easy for those not well in the WP community to criticize us for not having brought every Vital 1–3 article to FA by now. But there's much we can do about that without radically altering the guidelines and norms of Wikipedia. And that being said, I'm not sure we need to – editor numbers having been going down steadily and trying to repair that should likely be our focus, perhaps higher quality articles on big topics will come with an increased editorship. And then of course there's always the idea of trying to get more professors/experts involved, which I've always been a fan of... Aza24 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Part of the issue is that, per our current recognition systems, one FA under your belt is one FA, whether it was for a tiny, easier-to-write topic or a massive one. The WP:Million Award was supposed to address that, but it hasn't really been embraced enough to be a big motivator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Good point, WP:CORE and Wikipedia:The Core Contest were also ways to address this, the former of which looks like it was decently successful. Aza24 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  "[B]eing bold" on Kant or Plato doesn't really make sense for a non-subject matter expert like myself. I know that if I were to put down everything I'm doing and work on Kant it would take at least a couple years just to improve his sub articles (His Criiques, Ethics, Kantianism etc.) and have a solid enough understanding to be able summarize such a giant in philosophy into his own article to FA quality (and in layman's terms), let alone go through the massive literature by not only him but by so many others about him.

  That is the answer to the IP's OP. Sometimes we think of all articles as "articles", but summarizing the world's knowledge about a television episode is orders of magnitude away from summarizing the world's knowledge about a topic like Kant or Plato. For centuries, subject matter experts have spent their entire lifetimes on this task; how long will it take an unpaid non-expert working in their spare time? Lev!vich 17:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Guess what? You don't have to understand. --Trovatore (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  "I don't understand why editors (in English Wikipedia) are more hesitate to spend time to improve them but spend hundreds of hours on esoteric articles?" And yet our IP friend chooses to spend time posting on this esoteric VP page, instead of improving "vital" articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  I do in fact edit vital articles occasionally as IPs (admittedly not a lot). Adding a sentence with source there and there. Discussion may lead to something good; you never know! 14.169.190.55 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Personal opinion/experience only: Part of the issue is just that these big articles can sometimes be a pain to work on. The process is often not as enjoyable as working on a quiet article or creating one from scratch. There's also a big difference between collaboration and trolling, and sometimes working on a big article the latter will happen. Whether that be reverts, or pointless bickering on talk pages extended over weeks. That sort of stuff is just not enjoyable. Even if it happens only sometimes, the mere chance I think can put people off. Some of my most enjoyable moments here editing have been on more quiet articles. There is still collaboration (it's required, certainly), but it's less hostile and feels more collaborative and focused on improvement. A second big issue is that these big articles are daunting and certainly harder to write, with a lot more to research, and it just naturally takes longer and lots of revisions until the 'right article' is reached. It's also harder to refine acceptably than write. Encyclopaedic writing is hard enough as it is. At the end of the day, it's a volunteer community, and people will deviate their time towards what is most enjoyable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  It is a fair question, though. Though I will say that I'm not sure if all these vital articles lacking is really that big of an issue. eg I have never read any of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 (I'd imagine they're too broad for my taste). What is more important imo is specific articles on concepts and events. We do quite well in that regard. To name one set of examples: our World War 2 articles are in quite good shape. eg look at the list of FA/GAs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force. I think this represents better bang for buck for the reader wanting to learn about a topic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, I looked, & the great majority of FAs are indeed micro-topics I'd never heard of, beginning with 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) at the top of the list, going down to some German ship beginning with a Z at the end, so very much demonstrating our problem. I expect the GA's are better. What shape are the WW2 articles with the 50 highest views in? That's really the question. On the vital articles, the 10 level 1 and 100 Level 2 articles are indeed extremely broad, & probably don't get many more views on average than the 1,000 level 3s. Levels 3 & 4 are where our failure starts to show, I expect. Johnbod (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here is the most vital and important^{[Citation Needed]} page on Wikipedia: On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What is in the opinion of editors the proportion of text by an 'autobiographer' that makes Template:Autobiography appropriate? There don't seem to be clear guidelines. I believe that the template has inappropriately applied to the article Toby Young and have raised the issue on the article talk page (and at Template talk:Autobiography). In brief, in this case, page statistics estimate that while edits by Young constitute 21.8% (the figure cited by the editor placing the template) over the history of the article, they currently involve only 6.4% of the content. Young seems not to have edited the article since 2017, since when a variety of editors have more than doubled the article size, in the context of much debate on the article talk page. In these circumstances it seems to me that the template, stating that the article "may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" conveys a misleading impression to the casual reader or editor. Opinions would be welcomed. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

6.4% of the raw characters have been added by Young, but 21.8% of the prose text (as the article currently stands). These raw figures are sufficient to justify the {{Autobiography}} tag according to common standards and practices. I suggested that Smerus raise the discussion in another forum because their arguments seemed not to relate to Toby Young but instead to the general usage of the tag, Smerus arguing:

If [personal] friends [of the subject's] editing counts as COI (and I agree it does), then so should enemies' editing. And much editing has clearly been done here by those who dislike [the subject]. [...] can we not just all be trusted to behave as responsible people, to read and edit the article in a responsible manner, and make up our own minds without being told or signposted what we should think? Just asking..... [...] Perhaps my estimate of editors' abilities is slightly higher than yours in that I believe most of them will realize that elements of the article is controversial without them being told so, but I was ever an optimist

More opinions anywhere are welcomed by me too. — Bilorv (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Percentage is a lousy way to measure it. The difference between "Nat Gertler (born Camden, New Jersey) is a comic book writer and a rock and roll performer" and "Nat Gertler (born Camden, New Jersey) is a comic book writer and a rock and roll superstar" is only about 6%, but it's still a problematic difference. Once the template has been appropriately applied, it should not be removed until consensus is reached on the talk page that any imbalance that was added has been addressed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is now taking place in at least three venues (article talk page, template talk page, and here). Please centalise it in one of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This comes as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy van der Poel and the closure by User:Pax:Vobiscum. I can't find fault with the closure, but I do wonder: the only policy or guideline that adresses local sources is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (section WP:AUD), but this rule formally doesn't apply to other topics. Nevertheless, I have seen many discussions where local sources are dismissed, e.g. for politicians, sportspeople, schools, musicians, ...

Local newspapers and magazines logically give disproportionate attention to people of local interest which never get real attention outside their small circle. The winner of a local junior sports event may well get an interview with some background information, a picture, ... in the city newspaper, while never being anything but a name in a database / results listing for the rest of their state or country, never mind the world.

Is it worth it to start an RfC to see whether more policies and guidelines should have a caveat that local sources don't count towards notability (although they can be used as reliable sources otherwise), or is the current situation desirable for most people? Fram (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've been pondering this one too a bit. You see it in discussions outside of NORG and AFD in fact. Some of it kind of falls out of WP:SBST even today: reporting at the local level is almost always routine. I'm not sure a single RFC on the topic makes sense, maybe start with a discussion (this one? WT:N?) to see leanings. --Izno (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: I think this is part of the definition of "significant coverage" - not only is the coverage significant, but the impact or reasonably expected impact of the coverage. A 2-page "hard journalism" article in a low-circulation subscription- or paper-only source that is independent and reliable may have a lot less weight than a 1/4-page article about the same topic in a national general-interest magazine, everything else being equal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have raised the possibility of applying NORG's AUD principle as a more general case for notability before (years ago though) and this was met with resistance, and part of the problem is also defining a local source, when you have something like the NYTimes. In that: the NYTimes is broadly considered a national newspaper but we know it also has sections devoted to local NYC things like eateries and the like, coverage that we would deem routine if it were from a "local source" but because its graced in the NYTimes, some would want to call that national coverage. What I think is key is tying local and routine coverage as elements that do not lend well towards notability on a general scale. Local sources will always cover local elections, local school sporting events, local restaurant reviews, and so on; this is a determine we can make whether it is from the NYTimes or the Smallville Press. That's not to say we dismiss these as valid sources if notability can be demonstrated other ways, they just alone cannot be used for notability. A local story about a restaurant but outside of a review - such as a restaurant achieving a regional franchise success - would be reasonable to allow for notability. --Masem (t) 21:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good way of putting it, but "common sense" is required. A local-paper full page piece titled "Local student comes in 3rd in national high school science competition, for research into [some obscure topic here], wins scholarship to Harvard" and the student's research was on something not of general interest would be nothing more than a flash-in-the-pan WP:ONEEVENT. On the other hand, "Local student comes in 3rd in national high school science competition for research leading to an effective treatment for COVID-19, wins scholarship to Harvard" is also WP:ONEEVENT but it might be a strong indicator that this person is also receiving significant coverage elsewhere due to the general interest of the research. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that's always why other policies and guidelines are also to be taken into consideration: BLP1E for the case of the "hometown hero" for your example. Or in my case of the restaurant that gains a regional presence, we'd still expect further sources per NCORP. I just think many of the issues about local sources can also be resolved when we consider what is generally also routine in local sources and eliminate those for notability off the bat, simplifying most discussions after that. --Masem (t) 22:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• The NYTimes used to publish regional edition, such as an edition for distribution on long Island, which contained an additional section of Long Island local news. This does not have the same national recognition--the section was not even distributed in the National editon. The standards for inclusion there were much lower than in the main NYT. They were basically the same as any local newspaper in the two suburban counties--to cover all local events , indiscriminately, but in a reasonable approach to a proper journalistic manner. Other newspapers have done similarly.

National broadcasters do similarly: CBC in Canada and BBC in England have local regional editions. Material in them has the same limited degree of selectivity as and equivalent local broadcaster. Commercial station do likewise: I've recently encountered in for CBS, and I presume there are others. As journalism, it makes perfectly good sense. There are quite a few articles in Wikipedia where a reference called BBC is really BBC-Dorset or whatever-- I have learned to look for it in articles where all other sources are obviously weak, except one that happens to be BBC or CBS or the like, but isn't really. The only way to detect this to to actually go to the reference, not just read thereference list. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. While many articles in local sources (or the local section of otherwise national sources) are indeed routine coverage, some of it isn't. An interview / reportage on a local firefighter / baker / teacher / ... with 25 years activity or who celebrates their 100th birthday and looks back on their life and career is not "routine coverage" as I see it, but is not something that should establish notability for that person. Or else one would need to equate all local coverage with routine coverage, which is mixing things somewhat inappropriately. E.g. young sportspeople with potential often get multiple articles in their home newspaper, beyond routine coverage (when they break an age record in their sport, when they transfer to the youth academy of a bigger club, when they get voted player of the year at their school, whatever); for many sports they corrctly aren't considered notable in NSPORTS, but the GNG gives them a free pass anyway. Should this (in general, not just for sports) be tightened / made clearer, or is this the desired result? People here seem to agree that such local coverage shouldn't count, but there is nothing in the policies or guidelines which supports this beyond "routine coverage". Fram (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A fairly simply question. Personally, I think moving an article to draft or user space should only be done when a volunteer is available who intends to work on said article. If nobody (including the page mover) has volunteered to improve to article, it shouldn't be moved to draft or user space only to be deleted per G13 half a year of perfectly predictable inactivity later. If notable and salvageable, it should usually remain in main space (with problem tags where appropriate) or go to a deletion department like AfD. It shouldn't go to draft limbo.

Am I missing something? Can there ever be a good reason to send articles to draft or user space when nobody has any immediate plans to work on them? Note: yes, there is a specific case (see also AN discussion, courtesy ping for S Marshall) that makes me ask this, but I believe the situation in general calls for an answer. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's a simple-seeming question with a crapload of context and history. There exists, as of now, a consensus to mass-draftify a set of articles created by the content translation tool and formerly subject to speedy deletion criterion X2, now superseded because I personally deprecated it in deference to the community consensus to mass-draftify. Previous discussions on the administrator's noticeboard have been archived without result. Those wanting to understand the underlying issue here should begin at WP:AN/CXT. —S Marshall T/C 00:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  From the last discussion it became quite clear that there is no longer a consensus for draftifying as G13 criteria changed after the 2017 consensus. But regardless, I think the question is universal. What's the point, ever, of moving an article to draft (or user) space if nobody has volunteered to work on it? This might work for hot subjects (but finding a volunteer for those wouldn't be hard anyway) or if G13 had never been been modified, but it has. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't read that AN discussion as "quite clear" about anything. In any case, the problem is that the WMF served us a shit sandwich and we need to find a proportionate way to clean up. Instead of draftification, would if be preferable to reinstate CSD#X2? I thought draftification kinder, but I'm not averse to the speedy deletion process instead. (Volunteer sysops to do all the deleting are welcome to pipe up here.)—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  I haven't really gotten my mind around the use case, but I would be opposed to a new general rule, but support one-off use cases when supported by the community. Otherwise cue the predictable concerns that deletionists will use this as an end-around to our deletion procedures. So, yes: I agree there are use cases, but they should be clear and community-supported before any action is taken. SportingFlyer T·C 01:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer: Do you mean you support one-off use cases when supported by the community of a rule that prohibits draftifying without a volunteer or of the act of draftifying without a volunteer itself? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Let's say I find a chunk of bad auto-translated articles - if the community agrees the best place to move them is to draft space, that's fine. I'm concerned with one-off, unilateral "well, this should be in draft space" moves. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: Draftification was a good solution until it was decided to make everything in draft space expire after 6 months, a decision that was made after the consensus you lean on. In the discussion bradv, Wekeepwhatwekill, Rhododendrites and Joe Roe (and myself, though I don't appear to have stated it very clearly in that discussion) agreed that draftifying was bad. Mz7 was less clear but didn't seem to like draftifying either. I guess JzG possibly supported draftifying, but this is not fully clear. Levivich supports draftifying machine translations, but this isn't that simple. Overall this leans towards "no draftify under the current rules". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  What's needed here is a consensus about what the workflow should be, and that isn't it.—S Marshall T/C 11:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Since it's not possible to know the now and future "intent" of all (now and future) Wikipedia editors, the question is moot. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• We just had a discussion about this, and the consensus was that moving articles to draft space is generally appropriate in only two cases: 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created. Because of our policy of automatically deleting drafts after six months, no one should be moving old articles to draft space unilaterally, as that side-steps the deletion process. – bradv🍁 16:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for linking that consensus, of which I was previously unaware. As the community appears to have decided that it's no longer possible to speedily draftify those articles, I shall desist from working on them and unwatch this discussion. I do feel that the onus is on you, Bradv, to ensure the articles you have just placed in the mainspace are BLP-compliant.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: The value of your work, which I think everybody appreciates, is in separating the trash from the treasure. Not so much in how it's actually dealt with, but in the checking itself. When it's known which articles are trash, they can be dealt with through a variety of methods either by you or someone else. I regret that you have stated the desire to give up on this valuable work. I hope you'll find something interesting to work on. Your work is valued, it's just about the exact method. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think not everybody appreciates it, and indeed the value of which you speak has been completely undone. Bradv has unilaterally reversed all of my draftifications, placing everything, including self-evidently defective BLPs such as Alberto Bertoldi and content that self-evidently should never have passed NPP, such as Alajos Kannás, in the mainspace. His restorations include content that was draftified within the rules, i.e. before the September 2020 consensus. I have repeatedly asked Bradv to take responsibility for repairing the articles he's restored, but I think he's choosing not to hear that. Anyway, I wash my hands of the whole problem and happily leave it to you.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Returning to the broader question, since the immediate issue seems to be solved: no, they really shouldn't. Draftspace was always intended for articles that somebody is working on. That's why it's called draft, and that's why we have G13. Sadly it functions more like a slow, unrestricted PROD these days. SMarshall's moves stood out because they were old articles and done en masse, but the same thing is being done to dozens of new articles every day. We need to start enforcing WP:DRAFTIFY more strictly. – Joe (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, I couldn't agree more, which is why I wrote edit filter 1076. An entry is created in the filter log whenever an article more than 120 days old gets moved to draftspace. More eyes on this log are always appreciated. – bradv🍁 21:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Bradv: Thanks, that's handy. I noticed that BD2412 recently set up Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace, which is also useful and already alarmingly large.

  I occasionally undo bad moves-to-draft but the scale of the task is a bit overwhelming. We shouldn't have to have a parallel process to review-the-reviews but it does seem WP:DRAFTIFY is widely ignored. Part of the problem might be the current default wording of User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, the de facto standard draftify tool, which leaves an edit summary ("undersourced, incubate in draftspace") that as far as I can tell has no basis in policy, and a talk page message which in my view actively discourages new editors from continuing to work on moved drafts. – Joe (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  I have no problem draftifying articles that are in no condition to be in mainspace, and haven't seen anyone work on them in that space. BD2412 T 03:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Don't draftify an article if there is no one to work on it. That's just backdoor deletion because it will languish for 6 months and get CSD'd. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• I used to look at User:JJMC89_bot/report/Draftifications/daily. Thincat (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Now that I've been pinged back to this conversation, I do object to my draftifications being characterised as "en masse". They were in fact carried out at the rate of one or two a week, after careful inspection by me, and in accordance with the consensus until September 2020 when the community reached a decision of which I was unaware. You lot need to get your heads around the fact that the articles we're talking about here are generated by algorithm, in very large numbers very quickly, and clearly unchecked by a human who speaks English. In 2017 the community gave up on trying to check them all, threw up its hands and decided to draftify the whole lot of them, but then didn't do it. And now I, who picked up the problem and made a serious attempt to deal with it, am getting a lot of crap from people who didn't lift a finger.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where to find a policy about this, so hope this is the right place to ask. I noticed recently that a Speedy deletion tag had been placed on an article which was on my watch page because I'd done a bit of work on it after it had been created, probably about a month ago. The deletion was because the page had apparently been created by a sockpuppet. There was a template with a place to contest the deletion, which I did (after someone else had already), which was placed on the talk page. I thought the article was worth keeping on notability grounds, and could be added to in the future as I had not exhausted the sources with my bit of editing. However yesterday it was deleted, without further discussion on the talk page or notification to me (or presumably the other editor who had also contested it). Is it a policy to delete an article regardless of merit, whenever it has been created by an account later identified as a sockpuppet? This seems a bit counter-productive to me, especially if other editors have spent time on it as well. I also can't see a way of looking at article history or trying to retrieve any of the work I put into it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BMB is what you are looking for. If there was significant content added by other editors, ask for a WP:Deletion review, otherwise, if the topic is notable, write a new one from scratch. The idea of {{db-banned}} and WP:BMB, combined with the "noindex" of new articles not yet reviewed by a new page patroller is to tell sock-masters "you are wasting your time, so don't bother, please, don't bother, we mean it." For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming that the sock-master was in fact banned, not just blocked, at the time the page was created. This is usually the case with persistent sock-puppeteers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, davidwr. I'll have a look and learn more tomorrow. I don't know much about sockpuppetry in general or the history of this particular one. I don't feel strongly enough to recreate the article from scratch - there's too much else on my list right now and it wasn't high priority. It just seemed like a shame to lose what was a reasonable bit of information (plus it took me ages to find a particular location, which can't remember enough about to find again!). Oh well. I appreciate your help regardless - it's always a good thing to learn more about these rules. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: Ask the deleting administrator to copy all references - or at least all references that are likely to be reliable, independent sources - to your talk page. This way, you can either restart it when you have time, or re-post the references to a related WikiProject's talk page and hope someone runs with them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This also sounds like something you should absolutely bring up at DRV. There are a number of tools available there to check if the deletion was done correctly, and if you contributed substantially to the article WP:G5 would not apply, which is something we can check and deliberate on rather easily. SportingFlyer T·C 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Davidwr and SportingFlyer. Perhaps I'll post there and let others have a look at it in the first instance. It wasn't a huge or critically important article, but it just seemed a shame to lose it, and creating new articles always takes more time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes in Wikipedia's back channels like WP:Volunteer Response Team or similar, word comes to Wikipedia editors that the subject of a biography is under threat of violence. Maybe there is a stalker, a history of criminal violence, an actual murder attempt, or any other crazy background. More commonly, maybe we have no information except a random Internet person with no context saying that the subject of an article is under threat.

The requesting person asks Wikipedia editors to remove content, like removing the real name (which is different from the WP:COMMONNAME) or removing personal details like relative names, residence, date of birth, or whatever. They may want WP:Revision deletion also.

Sometimes staff of the Wikimedia Foundation ask community volunteers to execute changes. I understand why they do this: having community members do it means that the edit will be as discreet as possible. However, for the sake of community safety and sanity, I can think of reasons why community members should not do this.

Recurring situations where someone makes this request:

• Political commentator threatened in some country or another
• Victim of domestic abuse or crazy stalker trying to avoid attention
• Anyone caught in a controversy or scandal, and now facing online mob threats

Questions: Suppose that somehow we get a request to remove information from an article with the urgency of preventing violence.

1. In what ways if any is a request to prevent violence different from the same request, but without anyone having a threat of violence?
2. Does anyone recall this discussion happening anywhere in any wiki forum? If so where should anyone look to find any previous discussion of this?
3. What special considerations should we have, if any, if an edit request suggests that increased risk of violence is a consequence of not making the edit?
4. In what way does the wiki community allocate editorial decision making power? The default is wiki community always having editorial control. Under what circumstances might the community defer the editorial decision to paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation or any other third party expert?
5. To what extent do Wikipedia community members respond differently depending on any evaluation of the seriousness of the violence?
6. To what extent is there social danger or risk of harmful mental stress for any wiki volunteer making decisions when threats are in play? If the danger and risk is significant, should we mitigate that?
7. If the Wikimedia Foundation holds confidential information and on that basis makes an edit request to volunteer editors, then does that mean it is okay for volunteers to execute the WMF request without understanding more context, or alternatively do we need some kind of Wikimedia community oversight for such a process?

Missing data that I want is knowing often these requests occur. My guess is 100-200 times a year, but probably the WMF could say if they wished.

I know these are tough questions. Anyone feel free to share thoughts about the general circumstance without directly responding to the questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely not something volunteers should be dealing with. We're not remotely qualified, equipped, or responsible. Such requests should be forwarded to emergency@wikimedia.org per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, whether they appear on-wiki or through OTRS etc. That guideline is also clear that volunteers should not attempt to assess the seriousness of the threat themselves.

I'm surprised to hear that the WMF would delegate acting on such requests to volunteers. If that's happening, I think it's something that ought to be discussed with T&S directly (and probably not publicly, for obvious reason). If you have some details on examples of this, could you please send them to arbcom-en@wikipedia.org? – Joe (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Okay, I sent an email to ArbCom with a way to find one particular case of this. In the email I said, "I am not making any particular request of ArbCom, however, if anyone wanted to respond, then I invite anyone to go to the village pump discussion and briefly give an opinion on whether and in what sense this issue is worth discussing in the open wiki community. Also it could be helpful after seeing this if anyone gives an opinion about the extent to which I correctly and sufficiently described the situation. I would be content with a  response like, 'if anyone wishes to discuss this, then that could be useful' or 'this does not seem urgent to discuss now'." Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Joe that any threat of harm should be forwarded to emergency@wikimedia.org as a first resort. The WMF should not direct volunteers to make edits pertaining to public safety, and volunteers should feel no obligation to action a WMF request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, if my memory serves, OTRS agents are advised to forward such requests to WMF, but there is also WP:OSPOL. As an OTRS agent, I would not handle it myself, and it would depend on the actual request as to my course of action. Atsme 💬 📧 10:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up email Bluerasberry. Looking at that example, I'd characterise it more as T&S advising or drawing attention to a potential problem with an article an rather than a request in direct response to mitigate a threat of violence (which they would of course handle themselves). I have seen things like that before, and in my experience T&S are careful to phrase them as a request for someone to look at the article and reach an independent editorial judgement, rather than a direct edit request. I would approach them with that in mind. In any case, ArbCom has a meeting with T&S next week so I will raise this and get their view. – Joe (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, Did you ever get T&S's view on the subject? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and Bluerasberry: Thanks, yes, we talked about it in the last ArbCom–T&S meeting. They confirmed that these should be interpreted as a heads-up rather than a direct request, asking a volunteer to reach an independent editorial judgement about something that was brought to their attention. They wouldn't ask volunteers to respond directly to threats of violence. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and Bluerasberry: Thanks, yes, we talked about it in the ArbCom–T&S meeting last week. They confirmed that these should be interpreted as a heads-up rather than a direct request, asking a volunteer to reach an independent editorial judgement about something that was brought to their attention. They wouldn't ask volunteers to respond directly to threats of violence. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe and CaptainEek: Thanks, you did a lot, it was useful, and it was more than I expected. I really appreciate you sticking yourself out for this. I also appreciate that ArbCom participation is such a big commitment, including to have those conversations with WMF staff.

The T&S response still answers none of the above questions I presented. That is fine because they are tough questions.

I suppose there is no need for ambiguity. WMF T&S sent a ticket over sharing that a person was the target of stalking and a bomb threat. Along with that info there was a suggestion for edits. If the bomb threat was important info to share then I think the wiki community needs documentation on how to respond to edit requests paired with requests to save a life. If the bomb threat was not relevant, then WMF T&S could have withheld that information so that volunteers do not have to process it, and so that they can treat the edit request like they would any other. I need to think about this more but I feel like the WMF is claiming the power to make a decision about whether to direct volunteers into the situation, but the WMF is not claiming the responsibility for what comes as a consequence of the volunteer decision. If WMF is engineering a situation to direct volunteers to make decisions in the context of violence then I somehow the wiki community should discuss the matter among itself.

I am not sure what I think or feel about this. I suppose I want documentation and acknowledgement of the situation. Also I wish T&S would report statistics about how often this happens, so that we can determine how often this happens. I only posted here because I have seen this situation with regularity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The most recent transparency report indeed provides such statistics. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Are we inadvertently giving vandals magic words that result in changes that otherwise would not be made? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia use BC for dates prior to the Christian year Zero? Using the more accurate BCE (Before Common Era) would be more inclusive and less Christian-centric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPinPhilly (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't disallow BCE, see MOS:BCE, but it depends on the context. --Masem (t) 02:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Per Masem, we allow whatever dating style the article prefers (this also includes whether to put "AD" before or after the year). Inclusivity is not generally affected, IMO, since a) most people don't generally care, and b) BCE/CE is still ultimately based on Jesus's nominal birthdate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really depend on "the context", but the established style. Two things we don't allow are "B.C." or "B.C.E." Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Because trying to prescribe a particular style leads to hilariously pointless disputes. – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Both are equally permissible as long as the article is consistent, provided you drop the periods. And arguably, using the term Common Era to refer to the calendar era based on the birth of Jesus is more Christian-centric. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an RfC about whether the |successor= parameter of {{Infobox officeholder}} should be added immediately after the article's subject loses re-election, or wait until the successor takes office. Interested parties may participate at: Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: Interim use of successor=. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I've recently discovered an incredibly commonplace practice of draftifying old articles against the draftification policy (WP:DRAFTIFY which says that only recently created articles should be draftified. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 159#Resolve the inconsistency between WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:ATD for more information on consensus relating to this issue. However, if one looks at Special:NewPagesFeed, clicks "Articles for Creation" (which limits to draftspace and not just AfC submissions), chooses only drafts that are unsubmitted, checks all the issue boxes, and sorts by creation date oldest one can find thousands of drafts more than a year moved to draftspace without any discussion. For example, Draft:List of historical women was created in 2002 and later draftified in 2018 with infrequent edits every 6 months that coincidentally prevented G13. Likewise with Draft:Gangsta Blac which was created in 2003 and draftified against the explicit consensus to ban this practice. Neither of these articles faced AfD, by the way. There are literally thousands of other drafts in position like these, created several years ago, moved to draftspace, and with practically no work on them done since then. There's also many other drafts that have since been deleted as a result of G13 without any discussion. My main question here is exactly what are we going to do with all of these drafts? Some were draftified before the clarification of this policy (e.g. Draft:List of historical women), is it OK to leave those in draftspace? What about those draftified after discussion which went against this practice? Should we move them en-masse back to mainspace? What about drafts moved from mainspace and later deleted under G13? Right now it's pretty clear draftification is still being used as a backdoor to AfD/PROD and many editors are draftifying old articles without any intention of working on them themselves and where nobody cares enough about the articles to save them from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess (talk • contribs) 23:40, Thursday, November 5, 2020 (UTC) (UTC) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chess: Draft:List of historical women was originally called List of famous women in history, and was deleted in 2006 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous women in history. Draft:Gangsta Blac was turned into a redirect in 2015, unredirected in 2016 using the Content Translation tool, and then draftified after an explicit consensus to draftify articles created using the Content Translation tool. Neither of those are problematic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• • There's still many sketchy draftifications though. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 07:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Also note that Special:AbuseFilter/1076 exists, logging all moves to draft space of pages more than 120 days old. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would assume that if they were moved back into Mainspace, they would quickly be sent to AfD... so my call would be to send them to AFD now. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Please no mass moves. If no one noticed by now, it's probably not a catastrophic error. Any editor may revert draftifications, and that should be done on a case-by-case basis. If, after doing that, someone wants to AFD them, they may. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  I would like to agree with you, but the fact that Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia has non-empty sections labeled "Extant for 10+ years" makes me doubtful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• If you see an article in the draft space you think doesn't belong you can still nominate it for deletion without moving. I've gone ahead and nominated the historical women list, for example. There really is no reason to have to do anything with the drafts identified in general. If you see a specific egregious draft that has no hope of being promoted out of draft space you can send it to MfD. The majority of them are not doing anything and not harming anything. Yes, it takes up disk space on some server somewhere but disk space is cheap. Draftspace is not indexed and the search engines should be ignoring it. Trying to "fix" this issue will almost certainly create more problems than it solves. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Also, deletion doesn't save much if any disk space, except perhaps on caches. In the actual master database which is the English Wikipedia, the revisions still exist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I just want to know how would other editors see the possibility of a new list of guidelines designed specifically for pages about ethnic groups or X people. In my experience, many of these pages are now of a low quality and include a lot of very subjective statements. For example, in my opinion such pages should include all the possible definitions of who belongs to the group and who doesn't, a question that is often controversial. My inquiry stems from the discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, section "Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality; you can answer there too. --Jotamar (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts: first, that any guidance shouldn't really apply to "pages" but to content everywhere. Conventions for specific pages are really too specific to be enshrined in site-wide guidance. Secondly any push to include "all the possible definitions" (for anything) appears at face value to be directly counter to NPOV, which requires us to include material in proportion to its weight in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's centralize this discussion over there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is a tension between the policies of WP:DUE and WP:RECENT in the articles of modern countries. While the history of a country can range for thousands of years, the articles for modern countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan Germany, Hungary, Egypt, China, Iraq and others almost always tend to focus on the modern country. For example, although the modern-day Russian Federation has had many predecessor states throughout history such as the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Tsardom of Russia, the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, the body of the Russia article only mentions these predecessor states in the history section. Similarly, the Economy and Politics section give little to no mention of the economy and government of these predecessor states, instead focusing exclusively on the modern Russian Federation's diversified and mixed economy and semi-presidential governance system dominated by Vladimir Putin since 1999. It is more appropriate, after all to elaborate upon the political, social and economic aspects of Russia's predecessor states in the articles of the predecessor states themselves. It would be more appropriate to elaborate upon important historical, political, societal and economic elements such as the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the State Duma of the Russian Empire, the Five-Year Plans and the New Economic Policy respectively in the articles of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union rather than in an article focusing on modern Russia. Similarly, it is more appropriate to elaborate upon Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in the article for Nazi Germany rather than in the article for the modern Federal Republic of Germany.

Another related policy tension I have noticed is that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY mandates that the body of an article impacts the lead section, while MOS:LEAD mandates that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". As the body of an article of a country such as Russia contains significant focus on modern Russia, including significant elaboration of Vladimir Putin's leadership, it can therefore be seen as a violation of due weight in the lead section to not mention Putin or otherwise give significant elaboration to post-Soviet Russia's history in the lead section. Presently, the only elaboration of Russia's post-Soviet history in the lead section of the Russia article is the following: "Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian SFSR reconstituted itself as the Russian Federation and is recognised as the continuing legal personality and a successor of the Soviet Union. Following the constitutional crisis of 1993, a new constitution was adopted, and Russia has since been governed as a federal semi-presidential republic." Meanwhile, the articles for other countries such as Canada and Australia tend not to have much recent history in their lead sections, as they have had less radical and dynamic changes to their politics and history since independence. In such cases, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems more appropriate to justify that the lead sections for countries with much more similar and shared histories such as Kazakhstan and Belarus, which give significant elaboration to their post-Soviet histories in their respective lead sections are more appropriate models for the lead section of Russia than those of Canada or Australia.

What do you think about these policy tensions? DeathTrain (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

DeathTrain, the first thing to do is to read the part at the top of each of these pages that explains the status of each page. WP:DUE is a link to a section of WP:NPOV, one of Wikipedia's all-important and mandatory core content policies. On the other hand, WP:RECENT is an explanatory supplement to the policy. "Explanatory supplements" may be useful tools in some contexts, but the core content policy always comes first when there is a perceived conflict. In over 11 years of editing, I have never seen an editor mention an explanatory supplement in a debate about a policy. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is an explanatory supplement to a section of the Manual of Style. MOS:LEAD is part of the Manual of Style, which is not a policy but rather a guideline. Policies have more force than guidelines although the Manual of Style and other widely accepted guidelines deserve great respect. It is important to understand the hierarchy of policies, guidelines, essays and supplements. Adherence to our core content policies is pretty much mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, the main articles on countries deal with all the aspects of a country as it is today, so yes, the history will be in the history section, and normally a "History of ..." article. That's how it's meant to be. Many leads, even of major articles, are not perfectly written, and that should be taken up on the article talk page. Some leads remain undiscussed for years, while others are discussed intensely. I'm not aware of general tensions of the sort you mention. Normally it's just a problem to choose what can fit in. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

In a nutshell, see WP:1Q Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Johnbod: @Headbomb: So what do you think should be done about the Russia article specifically? Is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS more appropriate to justify that Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus are more appropriate models for Russia's lead section than countries such as Canada or Australia? DeathTrain (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

On a quick read-through the Russia lead seems ok. Kazakhstan is the odd-man out here - 9 paragraphs (against WP:LEAD) and probably rather too much on recent politics. Otherwise the group are actually rather similar. The WP:LEAD requirement to summarize the whole article becomes unrealistic when dealing with a whole country. None of the leads mention the eg sports record, or have much on the geography. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: So what do you think of the relative absence of Russia's post-Soviet history in the lead. Belarus, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and many other post-Soviet countries give much more elaboration to their respective country's post-Soviet history in the lead section. DeathTrain (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well they have less history, as a state unit. I wouldn't object to adding a sentence on Putin, and "and is recognised as the continuing legal personality and a successor of the Soviet Union" seems unneeded at this level. The Mongols were the thing missing that struck me. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I recently attempted to condense the paragraphs of the Kazakhstan article's lead section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kazakhstan&type=revision&diff=989216831&oldid=989148513 There was also a recent discussion on mentioning Putin in the lead section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#Putin_in_lead_section What are your thoughts on that?DeathTrain (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have moved "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing", the target page of "MOS:COMPUTING", to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal), put {{Failed proposal}} on it, and re-categorized it in Category:Wikipedia style guideline proposals instead of in the MoS guideline categories. The template at the top summarizes the consensus discussions about this. The page failed as a guideline back in 2017, and again in 2018 as something from which to even merge-salvage a few points. We just forgot to actually deprecate it at the page itself (though it had already been removed from the {{Manual of Style}} navbox).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, after seeing all of the future solar eclipse articles, I feel like we need a slight policy change. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Why do we have articles going out to 2186?

I propose that we disallow all of these "future history" beyond 50 years explicitly under WP:CRYSTAL, or a related guideline. So for example, Solar eclipse of April 11, 2070 could exist, but Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 could not. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 00:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• No. This future predicted eclipse is well sourced. The criteria should remain on the sourcing. You may discriminate on concrete predictions as opposed to speculation. 50 years would be arbitrary, and will create boundary incongruities. Some things, like astronomical events like eclipse, are very well predicted and of interest into the distant future, while others much less so. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What actually needs to happen is the wording of CRYSTAL needs to be enforced, namely that these articles are not suitable if "if only generic information is known about the item". That leaves us with *checks notes* only Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 in the next 15 years, and my hopes aren't high for the remaining 175. But good luck obtaining consensus for that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that WP:CRYSTAL reads pretty good. Enforcement? Are you talk AfD? Can you link some AfDs where editors are not in line with WP:CRYSTAL? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

right, I think CRYSTAL reads fine, which is why I didn’t suggest changing it. For an afd, look no further than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186. Keep votes solely based upon the fact that it will happen. They don’t even bother to try and present coverage of more than cookie-cutter things to say about the article. However, the discussion here is between redirection and keeping- deletion is inappropriate- and I honestly don’t care enough to argue the point further - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional references are normally available, also see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to alter WP:CRYSTAL. You could try AfDing articles that don't seem to comply with the current wording, but others may or may not agree. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• If there are sufficient sources focusing on that future event, I don't see the problem. For example, 2086 Olympics is unlikely to be notable because what sources think it's important enough to write about right now? For scientific phenomenon, it's more likely that those will exist. Natureium (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• CRYSTAL is irrelevant here. It says:"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." An eclipse 176 years from now is not "unverifiable speculation or presumptions". It is verifiable. And an eclipse which already happened would certainly "be of sufficiently wide interest" to merit an article. 147.161.9.135 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• The key is whether the future event is or has ever met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As of November 1st, the 2020 United States Presidential Election was a "future" event, not guaranteed to happen - after all, some undetected asteroid could have destroyed the planet before then - but it had been "notable" for well over a year. Likewise, the next upcoming Olypics has almost certainly had enough reliable source coverage to qualify. Things like eclipses? Well, like everything else, it will be a case by case basis. Mere proof that some obscure researcher has published about that upcoming eclipse in a peer-reviewed journal hardly anyone reads won't cut it. Now, when it comes to sections in articles, a line-item in a list article, or templates like the solar eclipse templates, I'm a lot more forgiving. For these, basically, "is it encyclopedic, or merely "almanac/gazette" material. A template about an eclipse in 50 years may be encyclopedic if it is used that way in an article, but it may be "merely almanac material" if it's used as part of a list, with no discussion about its significance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think that this is just about Wikipedia:Structurism. Of course future eclipses are encyclopedic material. They are virtually certain, and of interest. The question is whether each should have its own page, or whether all the information, for the far future ones anyway, belongs in a list article. It is therefore not a AfD deletion issue, and AfD should not be used. Maybe something needs doing, but AfD is not the way to do it, and if you try, your frustration is virtually certain. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• This has a lot to do with CRYSTAL and we need to be careful about it. You're right, Wikipedia is not a a depository of everything, we're not building an Almanac of Everything. Eclipses are notable and I'm sure that the 22nd Century events are highly notable...but we're in 2020. Nobody editing Wikipedia today will be around to know if that article even exists. We've no reason to host it as a stand-alone article. Surely there's a general "eclipses of the future" type place we could use instead? Future Olympics aren't treated in this way, incidentally. doktorb _words^deeds 18:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is we can know with very good certainty that an eclipse will happen in 2040, but we do not know if the Olympics will exist in 2040 (or even if the 2024 edition will take place, but enough has been written about that where it's a valid article regardless.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I just spotted this, after participating in discussions at AfD and at WT:ASTRONOMY. There's more than enough information to write articles on these eclipses, and they are definitely going to happen as described, so there's no crystal ball involved. We don't have the photos and the scientific observations of them yet, but they will come in time. So whether you want to keep them or not depends on how long/short-sighted you want Wikipedia to be, if they are deleted then they will only be recreated again at some point in the future with pretty much the same content. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• There's a point of CRYSTAL that when we have assured events (barring the total collapse of humankind), like these eclipses, the Olympics, and national elections, that while we can say with very high certainity they will happen (and this even accounts for the delay of the 2020 Summer Olympics), how much secondary information can we write about that topic, beyond what is likely already covered on a page that talks about these recurring events in bulk? If we can't because the event is so far off - like the 2036 Olympics or the 2070 eclipse, it doesn't make sense for an article at this point, though clearly redirecting to appropriate pages make sense. That's the point about CRYSTAL is that even with assured events like solar eclipses, we don't need pages when those events are decades off and no planning has been made yet for them. I don't think CRYSTAL needs changing, this seems to be implicit by reading it, so it is making sure AFDs or other types of discussions are handling it correctly. --Masem (t) 21:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Masem: These aren't the same as human events. The eclipses will take place even if humankind collapses, unless it somehow does some serious geological/orbital damage to the earth or moon in the meantime. Anyway, in that case, we probably have bigger issues to handle. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  So far out into the future, this is something more akin to "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make any sound?" question for why we shouldn't have separate articles on events so far down the line that haven't recieved individual attention yet. To contrast, the Heat death of the universe is so far out and well beyond human timeline, but it is an event of significant astrophysics interest to warrant that separate article. --Masem (t) 22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  The heat death is actually much more of a case of a crystal ball, since we don't know that it will happen, but it is a scientifically established theory. Meanwhile, these solar eclipses are definitely going to happen, and they are significant astronomical events. (BTW, the falling tree still causes sound waves, it's up to you if you insist on them being listened to or not). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Solar eclipses as a whole are important events, and as an individual one comes up and there's preparations to observe it, the individual event becomes notable, but one 50 years out is not yet notable, that's the problem. It fails NEVENT despite being verified. --Masem (t) 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  No, it meets WP:NEVENT via "affects a major geographical scope", "worthy of notice", "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  It fails "worthy of notice" as it lack significant coverage in secondary sources, being so far off. When it gets closer, certainly those sources will be present, just as we would do for the Olympics or national elections. The same logic must apply, there's no way we can give special treatment here to eclipses. --Masem (t) 00:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if article on old albums should stay here even though there is no reference about it? Yet it is an album by a famous artist whose biography has a lot of references, but not on his album. Is it necessary to write articles about his/her albums? Also, should a telefilm or film published by famous producer but doesn't really have media coverage be written in Wikipedia? Please ping me if you have any comments about it and could you please put some links that relate to your comments, so I can take a look to it? Thanks. CyberTroopers (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, if the album or film is not notable, we don't need standalone articles on those works, but they can have redirects or entries in disambiguation pages that point back to the creator so that they are searchable terms, and they should be mentioned in the creator's list of works. --Masem (t) 14:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be two different viewpoints as to whether article titles that have been deleted after an AFD discussion should be reconsidered at Deletion Review if there is new information to support notability. On the one hand, some of the regular editors at DRV complain when such cases are brought to DRV, and they tell the filer that they should just create the article again. On the other hand, the instructions for DRV say, as The Purpose for Deletion Review: "Deletion review may be used … 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." So: Should the instructions for DRV be changed so that changed circumstances do not come to DRV, or should the DRV regular editors read that guideline again? At this point there seems to be a difference in interpretation between the guideline and how the guideline is applied.

If this should be discussed somewhere else, please let me know where else. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 should be removed or perhaps reworded to address appeals of denied requests for creation-unprotection, but editors shouldn't be required to go to DRV to re-create a page that was deleted (via PROD, CSD, or AFD) if the editor thinks the re-creation addresses the reason for the deletion (e.g., new sources). In other words, WP:BOLD re-creation should be permitted. Lev¡vich 07:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no way it should be removed. It's a little unclear as to whether you need to ask permission when you're creating an article that was deleted a long time ago. However, if you WP:BOLDly create a page that was just closed as delete as AfD, there's a very, very strong chance that will be disruptive. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I am satisfied that it is now being discussed at WT:DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There are at least two different interpretations of the film notability guidelines as they apply to future films, and efforts to discuss and resolve these two interpretations seem to get nowhere, because editors holding each interpretation know that they are correct and that anyone else is just wrong. On the one hand, some editors think that films are considered notable after they have begun or completed production. On the other hand, some other editors think that films are normally considered notable after they have been released and reviewed, and that films that have been produced but not released are only seldom notable. There have been contentious AFD discussions and even contentious Deletion Review discussions, and the outcome seems to depend on which viewpoint the editors who happen to take part in the discussion have.

The first sentence of the first paragraph of the Future Film Guidelines states:

Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date.

Based on that statement, some editors infer the inverse, which is that films that have been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should have articles. But that isn't what it says.

The third paragraph of the Future Film Guidelines states:

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.

I have tried to discuss this at the film notability talk page, but it has been inconclusive. Can we either discuss it here or publicize a discussion at another page? I would like to see it resolved. Are films that have been produced and not yet released normally considered notable, or are they only notable under special circumstances? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The third paragraph seems to say that films that have begun shooting but are not yet released can have their own articles if they meet GNG requirements. Is this true of the films in question? Newimpartial (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussion of the films in question that were in production was only about whether reliable sources had reported that the film had begun shooting, and not whether the production itself satisfied GNG. (I don't like GNG, because I think that its vagueness results in too many contentious AFDs and DRVs, but I recognize that my dislike is in a minority, and that many editors like GNG because of its vagueness.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that SIGCOV in particular can lead to unfortunate back-and-forth discussions that the SNGs can often pre-empt, but in this case a plain reading of NFILM does suggest that the intended treatment of this case is to throw the production right back to the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Wikipedia treats creative works [including films] in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." Rarely can anything be written about a film's reception, significance or influence before it is released. So one should ask whether enough has been written about the development and design of an unreleased film (in independent, reliable, secondary sources) to write something encyclopedic instead of a mere publicity teaser. Remember why we have notability requirements. Wikipedia is not intended to be IMDb. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree in general, but (unfortunately?), this needs to be decided on a case by case basis. There certainly cannot be any general rule that unreleased films can never be notable, viz. The Other Side of the Wind. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

An RfC has been opened into whether the filemover flag should be removed from CU (indefinitely) blocked accounts. Your input is welcome. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Now withdrawn. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand why machine translation was originally canned, since the amount of junk produced was overwhelming. However, I wonder if it would be time to consider allowing extended confirmed users to use the tool? The technology behind it keeps getting better, and I would imagine more experienced users would have the judgement to wield it responsibly. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems extended-confirmed users already have access. – Teratix ₵ 08:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It definitely does not currently work for me, can somebody else check? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill, do you have the tool enabled in your beta settings? It works for me, although it's clearly still a beta feature. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, Do you mean the content translation tool in general, or the machine translation feature within it? I mean the latter, which I'm quite certain is completely disabled in En Wikipedia. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Teratix, That is the content translation tool in general. I am speaking specifically of the machine translation function within it, which is currently disabled for all users. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an RFC proposal to deprecate WP:T3 deletions of templates ("duplicate or hardcoded instances"). Your opinions are appreciated at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope this is the proper way and place to bring this kind of issue up (and if not please let me know). The main issue I want to discuss is the way wikipedia deals with a person's birth name. The reason I bring this up is that it's always shocked me, ever since first using Wikipedia, the way Wikipedia immediately reveals everyone's birth name right at the beginning of the article no matter what. Obviously we must navigate between propriety, pertinence, relevance and respect when deciding what to include in wiki articles. Whenever I see a person's profile with their birth name, I wonder is that really always relevant in every case?

Maybe. But maybe its not. If it is relevant, it may not be so relevant that it should be immediately disclosed, as the first thing everyone sees on anyone's wikipedia page, no matter what. I understand that putting the birth name immediately before the name they're known by is a convenient solution for dealing with the issue, but I'm just not sure it's necessarily a good permanent solution as to be an official policy. There is also the issue of privacy and personal autonomy: names are given to us by others before we have any choice in the matter, and if someone has a name they're ashamed of, or embarrassed by, and they change it, I can't even imagine how devastating it is that Wikipedia immediately shows the whole world their unwanted birth name, even before their current name. Their birth name may be a name they have spent their whole lives running away from, and yet, there it is, before their chosen names, right on Wikipedia, which is usually one of the first sites in search, and is thought of as the official and definitive source on most subjects. I'm not trying to be political here, but imagine a hypothetical scenario where a transgender person was required to introduce themselves to anyone and everyone by always and immediately disclosing the gender they were at birth, their gendered birth name, and only then can they tell someone the name the currently identify with. I just think that everything communicates something, and what Wikipedia seems to be communicating by including the birth name as the very first thing in everyone's profile, even before the known and potentially legal name, is that the birth name is who this person 'really is' and that their known legal name is at best less 'real' than their legal names and at worst can seem even spurious and fake/phony.

I'm just hoping to open a dialogue about this as something that's always seemed like a shocking choice to me. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstewart888 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sstewart888, on pages about transgender people, we already state their legal name before their birth name. See, for example, Chelsea Manning, which begins with "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning)...". If you're asking us to remove birth names entirely, including in favor of stage names, not only is that an enormous task (I'd guesstimate at least 100,000 articles would be affected), it's just not going to happen. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As for stage names, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the order of names to something like "Lady Gaga (legal name Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta)..." This would also be a huge task, though. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{please ping me} 03:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

An Wikipedia should not be publishing any names for the first time, but only follow names found in reliable sources. So do not think that any privacy is additionally lost because of an appearance in Wikipedia. As that information would have already been published. Anyway the first name would be the name as used on the title of the article, and that should also be the first one used in the opening sentence. Any birth name would come second, so although you might be surprised, you should not be mislead. The name at birth would usually come first in the story about the person. In any case the name we use is the name as used by others as we follow reliable sources. The subject's preference is not a prime consideration, but should be included if known. There will be many many cases where the name we use for the subject is not the birth name, and in many cases we do not even know if it differs from the well-known name of the person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, per MOS:DEADNAMES we do not include the names assigned at birth for trans people unless they used said name during the period in which they were notable. This differs from our treatment of other birth names. Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sstewart888 we understand that transgender individuals may have complicated or painful views regarding their given birth-name, but please understand that is no malice here. I believe Wikipedia editors are, on average, supportive of LGBTQ people and issues. Compare our opening sentence at Marilyn Monroe and Rock Hudson. When a Notable person has had a name change, any book-biography would be expected to include that name change - likely on the first page if not the first sentence. A name change is a significant event in anyone's life, and that information is essential to avoid confusing the reader when a biography covers events both before and after that point in time.
You mentioned people being ashamed of their birth name. We can't fix the bias and bigotry people suffer out in the world, but we can refuse to participate in it or perpetuate it. I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but I don't believe birth name or transgender are shameful things, and I don't think Wikipedia should treat them as shameful. Transgender people are people, transgender name changes are name changes, and I wish we lived in a world where everyone treated it as routine and uncontroversial. Alsee (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why WP:3RR only counts the edits within the last 24 hours (or immediately after)? Seems to me like edit warring that takes place over a longer period of time is still edit warring, and if this clear and simple rule covered those cases then there would be less confusion over what is edit warring, easing the lives of editors and administrators alike by presumably lessening its prevalence. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the relevant policy, the three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule. – Teratix ₵ 08:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but is there a reason why the rule shouldn't just extend to all edits? It would make edit-warring very quick to diagnose, leading to faster repercussions and therefore I would assume more careful editor behavior. Rules should preferably be as clear and simple as possible. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If there's no time limit the rule is very subjective to understand, follow and enforce. 3RR over any period of time, for example, would be silly. It'd mean you can't do more than 3 reverts on an article ever, so you have to construct some notion of a reasonable timeframe. 3RR in 24 hours is that bright line that fixes these problems and makes it comprehensible. Longer term edit warring is still edit warring, of course, and people are still often blocked for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, I'm sorry, I thought the rule only covered reverts of the same material, my bad. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose 3RR could still be expanded to include reverts of the same content across any period of time? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course there could still be cases of edit warring that don't break 3RR. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The idea is to try and include only cases which are almost certainly edit warring, while making it difficult to game the system without slowing down considerably. 147.161.9.152 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

...which is a Good Thing, but better served with a 48 hour limit.

As for the original question, there are roughly two trillion galaxies in the observable universe.[8] One of those galaxies has a few hundred billion stars in it.[9] One of those stars has eight planets around it (it used to be nine, but we don't go there.) One of those planets spins at a certain rate (at least for now. It used to spin faster.[10]) So we take the time it takes for that planet to spin relative to the closest star (not relative to the other stars: that's just crazy talk.[11]), multiply by the number of strikes allowed in American Baseball, and that's how many times you can revert before violating 3RR -- but the rules for edit warring and 3RR are different. Totally not arbitrary. I hear^{[Citation Needed]} that the W?F is planning on changing it to be average lifetime of the Humboldt Squid[12] divided by the number of seconds in the song "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who. The W?F says^{[Citation Needed]} that this will be less arbitrary (not to be confused with arbitration) than the present system... I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Um, I thought we did go there. For what it's worth, if you are "there" it's going to be very hard to break WP:3RR. Latency and all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

First, almost any change that removes or substantially changes existing text can be construed as a revert. If there was no 24-hour window on the 3RR everyone would eventually bypass the 3RR simply through that. Second, one revert is not a bad thing - the entire concept behind WP:BOLD and WP:BRD depends on the fact that if someone has an issue with a bold edit, they can quickly revert it. If there was no time limit on the 3RR then this style of editing wouldn't work. Reverts themselves aren't bad; they're an essential part of the editing process. And a revert-war is tricky to quantify, yet the most drastic and disruptive revert wars need to be shut down quickly to keep articles stable enough to edit. At the same time, it can be very tricky to identify a broader revert war, determine who is at fault, and resolve it appropriately. This leads to the WP:3RR, which sets a very specific, narrow red line that allows some of the most disruptive revert-wars to be resolved quickly and easily, without the in-depth analysis necessary to analyze longer-term behavior. It's not the only type of revert-war, merely a narrowly-defined subset of them that can be easily dealt by a blunt rule with without the risk of causing problems for the WP:BRD cycle or similar things. --Aquillion (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a question about behavior in an AFD. Maybe the AFD talk page or Deletion Policy talk page are really where I should ask, but I expect to get a quick answer here, and I would like a quick answer without drama. An author created article Z. It was moved to draft space by a New Page reviewer. It was then edited by its author, and moved back to article space. It was then moved to draft space a second time, by a different reviewer. It was then edited and moved back to article space by its author. That is two trips into draft space and back out. Another reviewer then tagged it for deletion, which of course creates an AFD discussion page. The author then moved the page into draft space. The author then removed the AFD template from the page that is now in draft space. The AFD page of course still exists, and is listed in the lists of deletion discussions.

This is a case where common sense as well as policy says that the author was probably acting in good faith, and is now seeking to draftify it for further work, although they twice moved it back into article space when it was thought not to be ready. However, the AFD is still listed in the logs. If the AFD template were simply removed while leaving the article in article space, the appropriate response would be to replace the template and caution the remover. What is the best approach at this point?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Argubly, the page should not have been moved back to draft space once the AFD was tagged. The author could have asked "please draftify this" and asked for a speedy close so that the AFD could be closed normally. So yes, I agree the right response is to move the article back, readd the template and warn the author to either ask for drafting it or let the AFD run out so that the proper close procedures can be handled by an admin. --Masem (t) 05:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)