Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:00, 20 August 2011

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

• WP:VPP

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

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Notability of cemeteries

Are there any established guidelines or substantive AFDs dealing with the notability of cemeteries, preferably in the U.S.? (My main interest right now is Ohio.) There are several I'd like to start articles on that are old, some quite large, may have notable burials, and/or are in a major metropolitan area. But I am currently unable to find anything online beyond simple verification of their existence and location, except primary source (?) histories such as websites authored by the nonprofit orgs that manage a cemetery (which I think should be considered reliable, but falls short of WP:GNG). I'd also like to make/expand comprehensive lists for certain geographic regions that would at least provide a place to cover those for which a substantive standalone article would be difficult to justify, but I'm wary of starting this without feeling out the possible WP:NOTDIR objections. I think such lists would be a valuable part of the coverage of the geography, history, and culture of populated places, and a large part of my interest is noting historic cemeteries that no longer exist but had their burials moved and consolidated into larger cemeteries (a common practice in the U.S. at least as cities grew). Thanks for your comments. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think they meet WP:N, you can always add content to the article on the area in which the cemetery is located and create redirects to help users find that content. Individual elements of a larger article do not necessarily have to be independently notable. Content is still there and can still be found by searching the name, they just wouldn't have a stand-alone article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's partly why I want to develop the lists, but I wanted to see what the mood was on including a lot of cemeteries that I could verify but for which I couldn't demonstrate notability. postdlf (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox said exactly what I was planning on based just on the title of this thread. I'd like to add that I encourage Postdlf to make cemetery lists for counties in New York's Capital District because the NYCD wikiproject would be a strong supporter if Post wants to start there (Albany Rural Cemetery and Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York) having their own articles for being NRHP sites and notable burials (Uncle Sam and a US president)). Lists dont have to have all their listings be notable, the policy/guidelines are clear that the lists are to be COMPLETE regardless of having redlinks or individual listings that are not notable (something that was once fought over at List of world trade centers). Cemeteries fall under the fact we are indeed a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the answer I was looking for--hopefully most others would agree with you that they would fall under the gazetteer function. I have an interesting story about my visit to Albany Rural Cemetery in 2005, but for now my focus is on my home state, so you'll just have to be satisfied with the pictures I uploaded for that article back then. Though maybe I'll stumble across a good list formatting that can be applied across the board. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on a number of recent AfDs where our Gazetteer function was used to justify lists of non-notable items, (in a non notable collection) - if this is simply a tabular listing then I would consider it still at risk of failing notdir and being nominated or deleted. If it were to follow the featured list criteria of being composed of engaging prose from the outset then I don't see an issue. Generally all the facts can be independently verified by local history societies who will have published works either on general local history or specifically local graveyards/cemeteries; however their works may be difficult to obtain (no barrier to WP:V) but generally can be obtained from the society itsself or nearby libraries and may assert notability of the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What non-notable items failed gazetteer justification in recent AFDs? If you're thinking of the bus route lists, I think cemeteries are a little more substantial than bus routes, and at least a good handful in any given area are going to be notable enough for standalone articles, which can "anchor" a list and leave little argument against making them more comprehensive as long as each item is verifiable in some way, even if only to verify name and location. Also I think it's relevant that every biography, if complete, would state the location of the subject's burial location, but not what bus route they used.

Regarding your comment about local historical societies or libraries, probably so, but I'm asking more about how a cemetery list would be viewed for which that had not yet been demonstrated. We presume named populated places are notable, for example, or a bio that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN, even if GNG hasn't been demonstrated at the outset because we either assume that such sources do exist or will exist eventually, or that the subject is important enough for inclusion even if we can't get significant coverage but can verify the facts. In my own case, I'm currently living in a developing nation and so I'm stuck with just the books I personally own or what I can find on the web, which may be enough for verification but not GNG (yet). So I'd like to at least start on what I'm capable of doing now, and others (or myself, once I've returned to civilization) can develop it further.

I've started working in my sandbox on a list format, but haven't yet incorporated formatting for sourcing, and some of the cemeteries (this one, for example) I have been unable to find any print sources online discussing it, but in the meantime its existence can be verified as existing on maps even if nowhere else, and plaques at the location give some information about it (though lo and behold, it looks like we have Template:Cite sign, so maybe that's less of a problem than I think). Other cemeteries, as I noted, have histories on web sites run by the managing organization; I think the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, for example, would be a reliable source for a history of a cemetery it maintains, but that would arguably be a primary source not independent of the subject. Notwithstanding those issues, I think those should be considered appropriate for list inclusion, whether justified by the value in making the lists as comprehensive as verifiably possible, the judgment that cemeteries are inherently notable, or the assumption that additional (secondary) sourcing can eventually be found for any cemetery. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Whilst AfD's on Bus routes are ones I have commented on, a search of AfD for claims NOTDIR shows that consensus has supported deletion of lists on non-notable wind-farms, banks, restaurants, hotels, and more where claims could be made that it fulfils our gazetteer function. So hence my word of caution. Having attempted to research the graveyard at my local church extensively I know that there are literally no secondary sources covering it (where the neighbouring churchyard with some notable lairs is well documented) so I would not expect all cemeteries to be inherently notable, or assume that secondary sourcing can be found for even the collected cemeteries of a town or city. I also agree with what WhatamIdoing says below; unless the cemetery is exceptional then even small notable facts may fit better into a parent article about the town/village or even church. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You could consider WP:ORG, since cemeteries are organizations as well as locations. In general, though, I'd support merging any WP:PERMASTUBs to a 'parent' location. Unless it has an exceptional history, I suspect that most people would rather read about the "Lake Wobegon Cemetery" as a section in Lake Wobegon instead of as a separate article anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mottville Township Cemetery for an AfD in which a cemetery was deleted.  It is hard to guess what the closing admin was thinking, it would be worth asking on the closing admins talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cemeteries should be treated like places, assigned per se notability so long as their existence is confirmable. Why? Proper biographies often end with reference to where a subject is buried, and that should be a link to a place. The deletion of cemeteries because three independently produced substantial sources on the subject can't be mustered, like Mottville Township Cemetery, is completely asinine. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My two cents is that cemeteries are not notable unless proven otherwise. There are a lot of cemeteries. People should just park the cemetery info in county articles, since this is where amateur geneologists look for such info. Speciate (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Carrite, why should Permastubs be kept which read something similar to

  "El cementerio de las axilas" (English: The Armpit Cemetery) is a burial ground in El Armpitto, New Mexico. The cemetery is notable as the resting place of Joe Schmoe who received the congressional medal of honour for his actions during the Aphid war of 1896, and died defending Grover Cleveland's presidential rose garden from attack. Opened in 1813 the cemetery is still in use today, open 9am-5pm weekdays and by appointment on the weekend.

The notability of the burial ground is not inherited from it's inhabitants and there's no reason that it's inhabitants biography can't link to an article on the settlement/place of worship that holds the cemetery (or the specific section that discusses the cemetery) instead of the creation of a stub that is unlikely to ever be expanded. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom?

Over the last few months or so, there have been multiple XfDs nominated by sock-puppets of indef-blocked users. Some people's nominations fared better (in the terms of valid reasoning), but technically all would have been closed procedurally had they been discovered sooner. By the time that the confirmation from CU arrives, some of those nominations already had multiple other editors weighing in their opinions, and the closing admins decided to let the AfDs run their cases.

For example, Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is a sock-puppet of Torkmann (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and was blocked when CU discovered it. However, DSJ made multiple AfDs prior to the block of that account. By the time the block was conducted, 7 AfDs were listed by DSJ, of which only 1 resulted in a Keep.

WP:Banning Policy has a section that stipulates Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. Several comments were recently raised here regarding Speedy Keep policy (and by extension Speedy Delete criteria) vs banning policy.

So I'm asking the community to comment on this issue: What should we do regarding processes that require a nomination, and it was later found out that the nominator shouldn't have been able to do so (either due to blocks/bans/topic bans), but not before multiple legitimate editors have voiced valid supporting views of the nomination? Should we Dismiss the nomination altogether due to its invalid nomination? Do we Let the Process run its course, then if needed, raise corresponding issues at appropriate boards (such as deletion review)? Or do we have other options?

A simple example: A sock-puppet of a blocked/banned user nominated a valid article for deletion at AfD. (Legitimate) editors put in their views, and 2 days into the 7-day period required for AfD, it is then discovered that the nominator was a sockpuppet (and subsequently blocked/banned). What should we do about the ongoing AfD? - Penwhale | 16:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll be the first to answer my own question: I would Let the process run if there's enough valid points made by other editors to support the nomination view. Even though the current wording in the banning policy regarding this situation would be to revert the nom, if enough points have been made by other editors, then even if the process were to be tossed out procedurally, it would be nominated legitimately soon after. Despite the fact that we have no deadline, I don't see a reason why it needs to be re-done. Yes, it would be procedurally more sound, but I guess I prefer to see the light in things, perhaps sometimes overboard. - Penwhale | 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My own personal preference (using my personal judgement and sometimes using IAR) is to close with leave to speedy renominate if it's a "low risk" article and let it run if it's a "high risk" article. See this thread for my definition of high risk/low risk. That way if another Claritas sock shows up and starts opening up a can of whupass on Transformers articles, I can put a quick stop to it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, of course. However, the issue that some people are raising at ANI (and I must have missed it above) is that they felt the nomination itself, whether done in good- or bad-faith, has already tainted people's views on it due to the existence of the XfD. In addition, if the editor in question is only blocked, whether indef or not, then the blocking policy actually doesn't cover the reversion of those nominations. As such, I raised the possibility of the editor in question being only blocked, not (topic-)banned. - Penwhale | 16:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let the processes run unless there is an unequivocal reason for a speedy keep. AfD is supposed to be determined by the quality of argument with reference to policies. A well-reasoned nomination that garners consensus to delete is constructive to the project even if motivated by spite. If they should all turn out to be trivial then the nominator will be held to account for them. (No reason why if bad nominations can be made in good intent, good nominations can't be made with bad intent )GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• The previous comment and this discussion as a whole including the subject heading is confounded by discussing both blocked and banned editors at the same time.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Analyzing Penwhale's contributions, I see that the confounding of blocking and banning policy is consistent with previous edits discounting WP:Banning policy.  Penwhale writes at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, here, "A community ban would just be a formality, in theory".  Here, Penwhale has closed an WP:AN discussion against unanimous support for banning.  Here he/she has restored the edit of a banned user.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• That AfD nom, I shall note, was upheld at DRV, and as a closed AfD, shouldn't have been touched. I ask both related to block and ban due to fine-tuning what we are dealing with. As for Indef block == community ban, the position has always been that indef blocks that aren't going to be overturned is de facto community ban. I tried to close that discussion, people didn't like it, we all moved on. I wouldn't say that I closed against unanimous support for banning; in my personal opinion, formality should only be used when absolutely necessary (and in this case, I did't see a necessity). - Penwhale | 04:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that Unscintillating has no business messing around with long-closed AfD discussions, and your revert was correct. Reyk _YO! 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let the process run. The closing administrator is free to ignore the contributions of the banned user, but it is unhelpful to remove or ignore the opinions of good-faith editors. Reyk _YO! 18:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• If we can get in early the whole xFD could go the way of a G5 speedy delete, but of course it will depend on the reason for a block or a ban. If the ban is against making xFDs then the xFD should be speedy closed or deleted. Otherwise it should be clearly labelled as a sock creation and the supporting voters asked to reconsider their vote in the new knowlege. Given the socking there would also be a good chance of sock support appearing in such an xFD, so it would need much close scrutiny. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'd prefer that you use your best judgment. If it's a one-off, then I'd probably let it go. If the sock's whole reason for socking is to get pages deleted, then I'd kill the nominations. Allowing a sock to achieve his/her goals encourages the sock to keep abusing Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, as xFD's are not supposed to be !votes, the closing administrators would already have to judge arguments for/against Keep. I do agree with you that early on it should be labeled for transparency, but I feel that if the other editors can make valid views, then the process should run. (On that note, though, what if there were multiple editors that are supporting only due to "Per nom"?) - Penwhale | 01:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• If a sock is making frivolous AfD noms then they won't get a lot of support from good faith voters and the discussion could be closed as a snow or speedy keep. If they make arguments good enough that others agree with them, then the discussion should run. Reyk _YO! 03:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• And if the whole reason the person is banned is because of problems with AfD or a particular subject area? If I get topic-banned or site-banned because I keep trying to get ____ articles deleted, then is it okay with you if I keep trying to get them deleted, so long as some "good faith voters" agree with me before you realize that the nom is the 127th sock for a long-banned user?
  Because if all "I" want is to get these articles deleted, and socking results in at least some of those articles being deleted, then I'm definitely going to keep socking. After all, it costs me nothing to create the 128th account, and socking is an effective way of deleting the ____ articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's not an ideal situation, because we are then forced to decide which of two choices is less disruptive. Letting a banned user get their way, which in this case would be the improvement of the encyclopedia through the removal of content which other editors agree is unsuitable, or telling those other editors "No, sorry, your opinions are invalid because you agreed with a banned user". Both possibilities will annoy somebody, but I think the first choice is the best. I'd also like to remind you of what the banning policy actually says: "If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." In fact, the entire Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors section of the policy makes it clear that reverting is not mandatory, but should be tempered with common sense. Lastly, I think your example is a poor one because anyone banned for wanting articles on X deleted can only have been banned for it if they were making clearly frivolous or bad-faith nominations- not the kind of nomination random passers-by would agree with. Reyk _YO! 20:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not the kind that many random passers-by would agree with—but definitely the kind of nomination that some editor might agree with. We see all sorts of nonsense in AFDs. If people didn't come up with poor reasons for deleting valid articles, then WP:ATA wouldn't list nearly fifty common examples of invalid reasons.
  This is why I think we need to go strictly case-by-case: This is not a one-size-fits-all situation, so we don't want a one-size-fits-all solution. We need best judgment, not mindlessness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• So I think your position is essentially is "use common sense, leaning towards closing it" and mine is "use common sense, leaning towards keeping it open". Seems we're pretty much in agreement then. Reyk _YO! 06:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I wouldn't lean towards closing it. I think "use common sense, full stop" is the right answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Depends. While the difference between a banned and a non-banned editor is that good edits from banned editors are not welcome (and so may be reverted on sight), once other editors have spent time reviewing the merits of their edits and have decided to agree to them, there is usually no need to pretend that an AfD has never happened. An exception would be multiple frivolous nominations or obvious trolling. (If a banned editor starts a new GNAA AfD, it should be speedily closed). —Kusma (t·c) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Let the discussion run its course, and mark the blocked/banned user's comments so that anyone (including the closing admin) viewing the discussion can see that the user was blocked/banned. Once any user has already esxpressed an opinion which supports the banned user, I think that we must give that other user the right to have his/her comments considered. Chances are that:
  1. If the user is a newcomer, then ignoring his/her comments because of the nominator would seem to me like a BITE issue
  2. If the user isn't a newcomer, then if we close the discussion, the user is likely to open a new one with similar reasoning - and since Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy, we should just keep it open rather than having a new discussion created just because of the nominator.

  עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Follow normal AfD procedure. If there are grounds for WP:Speedy keep, then that will be done, otherwise, the article will be assessed on its merits during the seven days of discussion and consensus followed. Notices regarding new users and sock accounts and banned users are normally added to the discussion anyway, so that would be taken into account. The nominator is only the person who initiated the discussion, and they have no control over the outcome which is in the hands of the community. SilkTork 16:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Let the discussion run, of course. The nominator is irrelevant in an AfD. What matters is whether the page should be kept or deleted, and that's based off the arguments—not usernames. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• If it's a clearly disruptive AFD, I most certainly am either closing as a "speedy keep" or am outright deleting that AFD per WP:CSD#G5; a prime example of this is the Transformers-related AFD disruption caused by banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs), Claritas (talk · contribs), and Editor XXV (talk · contribs). Moreover, the door swings both ways; if administrators have the prerogative to delete banned users' contributions in violation of their ban, then they should similarly have the prerogative to speedy close deletion discussions. Otherwise, the banning policy becomes useless. –MuZemike 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would actually favor closing the AfD as "speedy keep" and perhaps even deleting the AfD page per MuZemike's comment, even if the majority of good faith comments are in favor of deletion. Users who have been blocked or banned are not be able to contribute to Misplaced Pages in any form and that should includes initiating an AfD. To do anything less would be opening a back door in the banning policy and allow banned editors to game the system. If another editor in good standing wishes to restart the AfD, they should be able to open a new AfD. —Farix (t | c) 13:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• If other editors have weighed-in in good faith, then it would not be even the slightest bit proper to close the AfD on a technicality. People may hate to admit it here, but just because a banned editor does something, that doesn't make what they did automatically wrong. Process and rules should not impede common sense. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. If the process has been initiated and other good faith editors are participating in the discussion, shutting the discussion down is unnecessarily legalistic. I can understand deleting the banned user's changes to an article or even deleting their individual opinion. But deleting the opinions of other good faith editors? Sounds more harmful than anything. Dzlife (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Let the process run - The fact that an AfD was created by a blocked/banned user doesn't make it any more likely to be kept or deleted, and won't change the outcome (particularly if the banned user's comments are struck or otherwise ignored by the closer). If the article deserved to be kept, it will be kept, and vice versa. —SW—  14:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Close immediately - Deletion nominations started by banned or blocked users are violations of legality. All nominations made by previously banned or blocked users should be immediately closed without prejudice. Thing can be restarted if there is merit to the case. It is worth considering that some of these deletion efforts by the socks of banned editors are the product of editors who were banned for the very act of their agenda-driven deletions. Socking around bans should not be rewarded. Carrite (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing the discussion immediately would essentially be equivalent to making an ad hominem vote. Note that one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions are arguments to the person. In fact, one of the examples listed for such an argument to avoid is "Keep, nominator is a banned user trying to destroy Misplaced Pages." Deletion discussions are about the article, not the nominator. Allowing a good faith AfD to run its course is in no way a "reward" for the nominator. —SW—  20:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Question- Would you agree that any such rebooting of the AfD should automatically copy and paste over all the previous good-faith votes? After all it is quite annoying to have to repeat yourself in a second discussion, and people who participated in the first one might miss the second altogether. If so, do you think there's any real difference between starting a second discussion or merely letting the first one run with the nominator's statement struck through? Reyk _YO! 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've personally got no problem with allowing a restart with all previous good-faith arguments restored. But there should be a requirement that somebody feels a challenge is important enough to restart. In general, most of these challenges are unimportant and may well fall away. There is nothing wrong with that. Carrite (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, let the AFD run. A significant percentage of Misplaced Pages articles are hoaxes, copyright violations or vanispamcruftisements, and if submitted to XFD would be properly deleted. If articles are about notable subjects, they might emerge with editorial improvements or reliable sources with significant coverage identified. I have done that for probably thousands of articles submitted to AFD over the years. If I see the AFD, then read the article and note that it is unreferenced, or has dubious claims of notability, and then I spend significant time searching for references at Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, the research library at my local university, or specialized websites for music and musicians, and then I draft and post my !vote to delete the article because it fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:BIO, or some other appropriate guideline, or my recommendation to merge it to a suitable target article, I would be outraged to find that someone "speedily kept" it because the nominator was banned/blocked/had cooties. I am not someone who mindlessly says, "Sure, huh, huh, let's delete it because someone said delete it, huh, huh, yeah!" How insulting and demeaning it is to assume as much! IF a banned editor noms a bunch of articles, and ONLY IF you see them and act before some good-faith editor spends his precious time searching for and not finding references, would it be appropriate to close as a "Speedy Keep." There have been similar questions raised at the Reference Desk, where a banned editor may ask a question, which people spend considerable time finding references and answering, then someone says, "I'm blanking this thread because the original poster was banned user XX." Even a banned user might ask a question, the referenced answer to which is encyclopedic, informative, and useful to many readers. And considerable harm to the project may occur when the writing of good-faith editors is tossed on the rubbish pile because it caught cooties due to the banned user launching the thread. Edison (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Allow Afd to conclude if it is a legitimate nomination (outside of being by a banned user). Obviously, if the nomination is not done in good faith, then speedy keep and delete the AfD. I agree that AfD is about articles, not users. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• It depends If the XfD is in any way related to the reason underlying the block/ban, and if closure will not cause further disruption, I believe it should be closed with no prejudice against any other user starting a fresh discussion immediately/whenever; additionally it might be appropriate to notify participants of this closure and reason for it. If the XfD is unrelated to the ban, it should continue. I'd like to think that common sense would cover any specific decision, and regular discussion/consensus; it's not that common an issue, and don't believe specific guidance is necessary or desirable. (WP:CREEP)  Chzz  ►  16:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Let the AfD run Blocks and bans aren't punishments, they are supposed to prevent harm to Misplaced Pages. And pre-mature closing of the AfD doesn't serve that goal, it only serves the "punishment" goal.--Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Let the AFD run per Puchiko. Bad-faith AFDs should be kept or speedy kept regardless of whether the nominator's allowed to edit, and good-faith AFDs should result either in keep or delete based on the arguments: in this situation, the rule gets in the way of our improving Misplaced Pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What about other processes (RFC/U, RFARB, etc.)?

I'm wondering what happens when a sock of a banned user starts another process.

• Sock starts a WP:RFARB on the admin that blocked him
• Sock nominates somebody for adminship and starts an RfA
• Sock starts an RFC on Pending Changes
• Sock requests a checkuser on an enemy
• Sock starts a WP:RFC/U on an enemy

Recently an RFARB was allowed to run after a sock started it. What should we do when sock starts a process like these and the process is underway before we find out it's a banned user? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, most of these events are so rare that WP:UCS provides all of the guidance we need. Experienced users know when to spot a sock most of the time, and we don't need any extra policy guidance beyond "use sound judgement". 99% of the time, these things get reverted, deleted, or ignored with no further action; in the other 1% of the time a bona fide experienced user will often "take ownership" the situation if it has merit. I don't see any need to codify this sort of thing in law any more than it already is. We delete the contributions of banned users on sight, excepting in the few cases where WP:IAR may apply; such as when an AFD has bone fide delete comments that follow the nomination, or other occurances. --Jayron32 03:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• They should be closed. If someone else wants to start an AfD, they can link to closed one. Otherwise, it's "you're banned, except from starting AfDs." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well:

• ArbCom requests have ArbCom members (and clerks) to deal with (and technically they actually could email the committee instead if the need arises without resorting to socking);
• CheckUser requests are also scrutinized by CheckUsers and their clerks (and WP:BOOMERANG could apply);
• Valid RfA/RfC(/U) would/could be endorsed by other editors (as they, like AfDs, require community input for them to work)

I think I summarized okay here? - Penwhale | 06:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What some people can do, and what those people actually do, can be quite different though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• In a lot of ways, I think this also comes back to canvassing policy and the need to clarify the way it works in practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• RfA: If the original nominator disappears (assuming the nominee accepted) I treat it like a self nomination (and don't hold the sock's nom against them). RfArb: ArbCom and it's clerks are pretty good at isolating problematic statements by disruptive users once it's gotten beyond a RfArb request. RFCs couldn't hurt to leave open as establishing consensus (even if it's in the opposite direction) is useful for enforcing the will of the community. CU is very highly watched and policed (in addition to having the Arb Oversight committee) that getting a checkuser on a enemy is not likely to shed any useful data. And finally, a RFC/U takes 2 endorsers of the statement of the dispute to get it to stick more than 48 hours. If there are 2 other users in good standing that have attempted to resolve the situation unsuccessfully then It's a good bet that there is a real problem that shouldn't be swept under the carpet because the person who filed the paperwork has been indeffed. Hasteur (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Per Jayron32 and my comment in the above section, I think a) this is rare, b) current policy/guidelines are adequate, c) it needs case-by-case discussion/consensus and a pinch of common sense.  Chzz  ►  16:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• My thoughts: If the case was closed recently enough, the closing admin should be alerted and asked to review the case (or at least lodge it at Deletion reviews). If the case is still open, let it run its course, but it should be noted for the closer that the requester was a sock. Nightw 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Related question

Should people go back to closed discussions like concluded AfDs to remove or strike through comments made by people later found to be socks of banned users?

• Oppose- I think it's pointless, and potentially confusing for anyone reviewing the discussion later on. I don't think the banning policy calls for anything of the sort, and I think closed discussions should be left as they are. Reyk _YO! 23:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• It depends on the timing of the discovery and whether the invalid comments had a material impact. I agree that striking WP:Articles for deletion/Warpath (Transformers) is unnecessary, since the nominator's status was discovered and noted at the AfD within several hours. Sockpuppetry wasn't discovered for WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne/AfDs affected for over a month. Those AfDs were annotated on a case-by-case basis. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should recuse your comment about Warpath (transformers)?  Are you aware that the closing admin of that DRV has never issued a related ruling regarding WP:Banning policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• The premise of the RfC question is unclear, since what WP:Banning policy says is, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• The de facto practice is that the edits of banned editors at AfD are not physically reverted, but they are changed to strike-through font.  I'm not aware that the reason for doing this, as opposed to a simple revert, is documented, but there is a talk page rule in refactoring that calls for avoiding the changing of meaning when refactoring, and a simple revert (or blanking for the special case of the AfD nom) could change the sequence of ideas in the AfD discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• There is a further point in this discussion, I am aware of some editors that have restored the edits of banned editors.  WP:Banning policy states, "editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd say it's a good idea to let the process run its course so long as there is an adequate level of response from other editors. As an example, the recent ArbCom case for MickMackNee was kept open even after it came to light that the filing party was a sockpuppet of a banned user, probably because there were other users who had the same grievances with him as the sock did. Nightw 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD nominations and de jure WP:Banning Policy

Many of the editors commenting above didn't discriminate between a blocked editor and a banned editor.  A key comment at ANI was that this is a case where there is a difference between de facto and de jure bans.  So the focus of this particular section has to do with the de jure ban, meaning the editor has actually been banned, not that his status is similar to being banned.

Misplaced Pages:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad states

The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

1. ^ Public Records of Armpit County
2. Joe Schmoe: "I jus' kills 'em.", Thomson, 1965, University of Armpit Publishing
3. Examples of use at Requests for Arbitration: - by Hersfold, by Newyorkbrad, by Vassyana (line 478+) (A ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Let's not enable them).

At first glance, this would seem to end the discussion about AfD nominations and banned editors.

But before getting to that, it is worth asking, why would a detail this small require any further discussion?  After all, among the edits that a user makes, the number of AfD nominations would on average be almost non-existant.  Yet experience shows otherwise, so we have to reverse the question and ask, why do banned editors make an unusually high percentage of AfD nominations?

1. Such nominations are especially disruptive, they take up potentially hours of time of perhaps dozens of editors, and at least one admin; whereas any single contribution to an Article may be quietly reverted and forgotten.
2. Renominating an article that has previously been closed as "No consensus" is an almost guaranteed way to stir up the community.
3. There is a group of deletionist-minded admins and editors that protect these AfD nominations.
4. An undiscussed edit was made to a deletion guideline, an edit that is used to protect and encourage such nominations.

So in fact, banned editors have reason to love making a sock and making AfD nominations, and the record also shows that they like to make delete !votes at other AfD discussions.  Even if the nomination fails, they have succeeded in increasing the "burden of deletion".  If we can assume that Keep !votes take more time than Delete !votes, and that the result of an AfD discussion is partially a function of the work expended to prepare a posting, a failed AfD nomination has still biased all other AfD discussions toward deletion.

So back to the policy, Misplaced Pages:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad, why does this policy statement not end the question?

1. Should this policy be strictly enforced?  Ron Ritzman advances the question by making the point that there is such a thing as a "high risk" AfD nomination, such as the biography of a living person.  He believes we should not apply strict banning policy criteria for such articles.
2. Another problem is that AfD nominations cannot be reverted in the usual sense.  For technical reasons, when an edit is the first on a new page, the revert function doesn't work.  The closest alternative is the deletion of the page, but once even one other editor has posted, the page should not be deleted because the history of the good edit would be lost.
3. Even though policies state that they are "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" not all editors and admins accept this standard.
4. A last problem comes in the annoying editorial reality of what if on day 6 of an AfD discussion, it is discovered that the AfD was done by a banned editor, and someone reverts the nom.  We can be fairly sure the nominator did not work through the WP:BEFORE notes, and that the policy at WP:ATD (alternatives to deletion) was to the nominator likely to be a mere trifle.  Too many times we have heard that once an AfD discussion has begun, that the first delete vote "could have" done the nomination themselves.  That may or may not be true, that delete-vote editor may have enough integrity to refuse to start an AfD nomination without doing more work than was required by WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD.  There is probably a middle ground here that would need work at WP:Banning policy to work through proposals and soften the WP:Banning policy requirements.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The reason that the section of the banning policy you linked to doesn't "end the question" is that the section Misplaced Pages:Ban#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, which is more directly relevant to this discussion, recommends using common sense. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

An AfD nomination is not an "obviously helpful edit" so per the cited policy should be reverted.  Common sense is to stop encouraging banned editors from making socks and AfD noms.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant bit is this: "If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." Since policy describes community practice rather than dictating it, and AfD discussions started by a sock are in fact not automatically reverted, I think my reading of the policy is correct. Reyk _YO! 07:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To review a couple of recent posts, an exchange about led to the point that "Common sense is to stop encouraging banned editors from making socks and AfD noms."  Instead of agreeing, some new unreferenced text is quoted, calling it a "relevant bit"(?)  In spite of the inference otherwise, there is no requirement at WP:Banning policy that admins or anyone else revert the AfD noms of banned editors.  The reference to "reading of the policy" has an unclear antecedent.  Recalling the text of the editors that prepared WP:Banning policy: 

 == Evasion and enforcement ==
Misplaced Pages's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns:

• Maximizing the quality of the encyclopedia
• Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation to any victims of mistaken identity
• Maximizing the number of editors who can edit Misplaced Pages
• Avoiding conflict within the community over banned editors
• Dissuading or preventing banned editors from editing Misplaced Pages or the relevant area of the ban

As a result, enforcement has a number of aspects. While all editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them, no editor is personally obligated to help enforce any ban.

Unscintillating (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• My personal view is that AfD is like a discussion - sure, some people might be disallowed to start a conversation, but once it has been started and multiple people have chimed in (supporting the same view), then removing (striking out) comments no longer makes sense when looking at the whole conversation. Notating that the person in question shouldn't have been able to start the conversation after the conversation has concluded works, but striking out and/or removal of comments wouldn't help much.
• Simply put: Notating the closed AfDs that they were initiated by block- or ban-evading editor is okay. Striking out the nom altogether, on the other hand, would make the AfD lose parts of its meaning and should be avoided. - Penwhale | 09:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

@Penwhale, (1) Do you agree that banned editors make a notably high number of AfD nominations?  (2) Do you agree that the AfD process begun by AfD nominations takes a large amount of the time resource of Misplaced Pages editors?  (3) Do you agree that restoring the edits of banned users is "undermining or sabotage"?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

is ther any data on the number or duration of AfDs started by banned users? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flatscan just posted Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne/AfDs affected above, does this help?.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, no. That's a single case, and therefore unlikely to representative of the problem of banned users initiating or attempting to skew AfDs. What would be useful would be the number of banned users who intiated AfDs in a given period and the number of AfDs initiated by banned users. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So 140 examples is nothing?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As to your metric, (1) by definition, no one has a list of banned editors currently making edits.  (2) Given the Leanne case, it takes as much as 5 1/2 years to discover sockfarms, which suggests that you might need to go back 5 1/2 years to begin collecting your metric, as newer data is incomplete.  (3) According to Misplaced Pages:List of banned users we do not have a complete list of known banned users even then.  (4) The measurement of evasion is inherently non-deterministic, because evasion skill levels vary, and techniques evolve with time, so it is possible or likely that we have banned editors that we will never detect.  You might check with the admins in the CU area.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I went through the 1000 most-recent contributions of banned User:Anthem of joy.  I found in a space of five weeks 47 AfD or MfD noms, with 25% of the noms 2nd, 3rd, or 4th noms (recall that I above noted that 2nd and 3rd noms are an almost guaranteed way to stir up the community).  Then I also reviewed all of User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 contributions, finding ten AfD nominations in a month.  Do you agree that ten AfD nominations in a month is "notably high"?

• User:Anthem of Joy
• 2011-06-14T05:55:16 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chester Romans ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Chester Romans. (TW))
• 2011-06-13T19:12:13 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PlayStation Wrestling ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for PlayStation Wrestling. (TW))
• 2011-06-13T17:38:30 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiReaper ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Misplaced Pages:WikiReaper. (TW))
• 2011-06-13T11:56:41 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pulp and Paper merit badge ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Pulp and Paper merit badge. (TW))
• 2011-06-13T11:10:47 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED vehicles and aircraft ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED vehicles and aircraft. (TW))
• 2011-06-13T11:00:40 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Archangel class assault ship ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Archangel class assault ship. (TW))
• 2011-06-12T10:42:33 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Hron (2nd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for John Hron. (TW))
• 2011-06-12T09:19:11 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sphere Builder ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Sphere Builder. (TW))
• 2011-06-12T07:53:41 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (3rd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange. (TW))
• 2011-06-12T07:32:42 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fenway Recordings ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Fenway Recordings. (TW))
• 2011-06-12T07:22:47 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ankheg ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Ankheg. (TW))
• 2011-06-11T20:01:55 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED superweapons ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED superweapons. (TW))
• 2011-06-11T19:51:36 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements. (TW))
• 2011-06-11T11:09:25 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister of the United States (3rd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Prime Minister of the United States. (TW))
• 2011-06-10T15:21:34 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human (Star Trek) (2nd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Human (Star Trek). (TW))
• 2011-06-09T20:32:08 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/10 zeptometres ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for 10 zeptometres. (TW))
• 2011-06-09T20:10:02 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (3rd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Chronology of Star Wars. (TW))
• 2011-06-09T16:17:26 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious. (TW))
• 2011-06-06T16:47:01 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bajeluk/Thesis ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for User:Bajeluk/Thesis. (TW))
• 2011-06-05T19:04:45 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:VictoriaRILarsen ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for User:VictoriaRILarsen. (TW))
• 2011-06-05T14:27:36 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Davejenk1ns/Chapter 1 ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for User:Davejenk1ns/Chapter 1. (TW))
• 2011-06-05T10:31:11 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Minerva class battleship (2nd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Minerva class battleship. (TW))
• 2011-06-04T14:35:52 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Parhamr/Undergratuate thesis ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for User:Parhamr/Undergratuate thesis. (TW))
• 2011-06-04T14:17:22 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rachel27 ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for User:Rachel27. (TW))
• 2011-06-04T09:23:26 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED factions ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED factions. (TW))
• 2011-06-03T19:05:37 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for GAT-01 Strike Dagger. (TW))
• 2011-05-29T10:56:16 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TMF/A-803 LaGOWE ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for TMF/A-803 LaGOWE. (TW))
• 2011-05-29T10:24:57 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Demosthenes (fictional character) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Demosthenes (fictional character). (TW))
• 2011-05-28T09:38:03 (diff | hist) Tom Nash ‎ (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW))
• 2011-05-28T08:59:28 (diff | hist) List of people with the given name Mitra ‎ (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW))
• 2011-05-27T19:19:25 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of mad scientists (2nd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of mad scientists. (TW))
• 2011-05-26T17:14:00 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armageddon (Marvel Comics) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Armageddon (Marvel Comics). (TW))
• 2011-05-26T17:02:52 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam (2nd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam. (TW))
• 2011-05-25T15:26:27 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MBF-P01 Gundam Astray Gold Frame ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for MBF-P01 Gundam Astray Gold Frame. (TW))
• 2011-05-24T20:04:17 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (2nd nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series. (TW))
• 2011-05-20T21:09:58 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people with the given name Darren ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of people with the given name Darren. (TW))
• 2011-05-19T15:51:26 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional centenarians ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of fictional centenarians. (TW))
• 2011-05-17T16:11:35 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames of historical personages ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of nicknames of historical personages. (TW))
• 2011-05-15T14:06:53 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. (TW))
• 2011-05-15T11:13:55 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (4th nomination) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of fictional television shows. (TW))
• 2011-05-13T18:13:06 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Dual Mirror Language of Leonardo Da Vinci ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for The Dual Mirror Language of Leonardo Da Vinci. (TW))
• 2011-05-13T06:16:15 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara. (TW))
• 2011-05-11T15:36:51 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous General Hospital characters ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of miscellaneous General Hospital characters. (TW))
• 2011-05-11T06:13:57 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/World Heavyweight Championship (Total Extrme Nonstop Wrestling ) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for World Heavyweight Championship (Total Extrme Nonstop Wrestling ). (TW))
• 2011-05-10T16:17:49 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters named Sarah or Sara ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for List of fictional characters named Sarah or Sara. (TW))
• 2011-05-08T11:14:40 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe. (TW))
• 2011-05-07T16:28:39 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hung's adjustment ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Hung's adjustment. (TW))

• User:Donald Schroeder JWH018
• 2010-09-16T21:43:12 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starscream (other incarnations) (Created page Fails WP:GNG. An unhealthy dose of original research as well. Lacking in credible sources.)
• 2010-09-16T21:34:17 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Razorclaw (Created page Contested Gobots prod. I'm taking this one all the way. Delete.)
• 2010-09-16T21:16:59 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joyride (Transformers) ‎(Created page Another obscure, non-notable Gobots character. Is wikipedia run for the benefit of fifth graders? )
• 2010-09-16T21:11:13 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Groundshaker (Transformers) ‎(Created page Non notable Gobots article. Fails GNG and all wikipedian standards.)
• 2010-09-16T21:07:04 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Warpath (Transformers) ‎(Created page Original research, go-bots spamcruft, non notable, fails GNG, fails pretty much all civilised standards.)
• 2010-09-14T14:55:40 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cliffjumper (Created page with Non notable fictional character, fails GNG, and no reliable secondary sources comment upon it.)
• 2010-09-13T04:51:46 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race Car Patrol (Created page with Non notable Go-bots cruft. And you know what Randall Graves said about the Go-bots.)
• 2010-09-10T01:41:43 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sonar (Transformers) (Created page Fanboycruft.)
• 2010-09-09T18:40:36 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Soft sell (Created page with Original synthesis, original research and whatnot.)
• 2010-08-22T02:51:56 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Modern didgeridoo designs (Created page with Completely superfluous page. What little is of value (very little I may add) can be safely transferred to the a...)
• 2010-07-30T03:12:25 (diff | hist) N Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Misplaced Pages is amoral (Created page with Ostensibly an "essay" but blantant POV/agenda pushing, this page advances the cause of the project not, and shoul...)

Unscintillating (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, these are just examples of single editors and are in no way necessarily representative of common behavior by banned editors. If there is a banned editor who continually starts inappropriate XfD's at a high rate, then that is a problem with that editor, not necessarily with the XfD process itself. Therefore, your solution to the problem should be to deal with that editor, rather than proposing a change to the XfD process which is in conflict with common sense, and which fixes a problem which hasn't been shown to actually exist. And no, 10 XfD's in a month is not notably high. Prolific new page patrollers routinely start dozens of XfD's in a month. For instance, I nominated 27 articles for deletion in December 2010. —SW—  01:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The community has already had to "deal with that editor", that is why they were banned, we don't want them back with socks making edits of any kind, especially disruptive AfD nominations that take an enormous amount of the time of other editors.  Pretending that the problem doesn't exist or that it will stop as long as we allow the AfD nominations to run, or that the AfD noms of banned sockpuppets are somehow like new page patrolling; I think serves to promote the work of banned editors at the expense of the time of the volunteers who contribute at AfD processes.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Multiple editors have explained to you that we consider it to be too bureaucratic if the XfD would be restarted anyway by other legitimate editors. Aren't you arguing the same point over and over? - Penwhale | 12:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This subsection is not about blocked editors, but was created to focus on banned editors and WP:Banning policy; so you are talking about what to do about rotting apples that can still be fed to the pigs, in a discussion of rotten eggs emitting a bad odor.  Banning policy states that "all editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them".  You have ignored the questions I asked you on August 7:

Not a single editor has said, "'undermining or sabotage' is ok when it is Penwhale doing the 'undermining or sabotage'...not even Reyk who has protected such an edit.  My advice to you is to cease and desist in advocating 'undermining or sabotage', show that you respect Misplaced Pages policies, and restore the encyclopedia where you have engaged in 'undermining or sabotage'.  Once you commit to supporting Misplaced Pages policies, I suspect that we, meaning all the editors at Misplaced Pages, could have a meaningful discussion about minimizing the bureaucratic impact of corrupt AfD nominations by banned editors.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

wikispot

There is a outside website called WikiSpot that is somehow directly wikilinked. For example Hiking trails in Santa Clara County leads to http://sanjose.wikispot.org/Hiking/. There are about 90 such pale blue but otherwise not EL-looking links hither and yon in Misplaced Pages, some in See Also sections instead of External Links sections. Why are these links allowed, and why are they allowed to look like internal Misplaced Pages links? Speciate (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Interwiki linking for the feature, and meta:Interwiki map for the complete list of such sites. Per WP:SEEALSO they shouldn't be in See also sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As you point out, their color is different from internal links; they do lack the external link icon though. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO it's a bit slimy to camouflage external links as wiki-links to other articles. It doesn't seem like something that should be happening. Does anyone else feel like that?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Where we're talking about non-wikimedia sites, yup. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Additions to the Manual of Style or subpages

Generally, does one need a specific consensus from the community before adding anything to the Manual of Style or one of its subpages? Such as, "I want to add this to the MOS, any thoughts/objections?" --Rschen7754 00:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• ANSWER: Yes, you guessed it. The only changes typically allowed in WP:MOS pages, without prior consensus, would be for obvious typos, such as fixing a misspelled word within an MOS page. Hence, users need to pinpoint where an MOS-style issue should be discussed, so click Template:Style to view links to the sections (sub-divisions) of the overall MOS, and then propose a change in the related talk-page section. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

When are names for technical methods and systems proper names and when are they not?

As I understand Misplaced Pages title guidelines, only proper names should be capitalized. There are a number of article titles about technical methods and systems that are fully capitalized (but most are not). Almost all of these methods and systems are identified by an acronym which may lead to incorrect capitalization in this project. I have been trying to figure out when one of these names is a proper name and when it is a common name so I can fix those that are incorrectly capitalized. I understand that this is a sensitive issue since the proponents of these methods may consider capitalization as a sign of distinction and validation. Here are some example titles with both proper and common name capitalization:

Software development

• Rapid application development
• Agile software development
• Extreme Programming
• Adaptive Software Development
• Dynamic Systems Development Method

Project management

• Critical path method
• Program Evaluation and Review Technique
• Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique
• Critical Chain Project Management

I see no examples of proper name capitalization for medical procedures though many have acronyms.

What determines whether a name is a proper name in this context? From proper noun lead sentence:

"A proper noun or proper name is a noun representing a unique entity (such as London, Jupiter, John Hunter, or Toyota), as distinguished from a common noun, which represents a class of entities (or nonunique instance of that class)—for example, city, planet, person or corporation)."

Is the uniqueness of these methods and techniques sufficient to make their names proper? Or does it require a legal brand name? Or ...? Jojalozzo 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Very difficult question. There are so many technical issues around the theory of reference. For a real answer you need to ask a theoretical linguist or a philosopher but I sincerely doubt they would give you a straightforward answer. The Manual of Style doesn't go anywhere near this. In your shoes, I would go with "Misplaced Pages avoids unnecessary capitalization". Rubywine . talk 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer the specific query of "what of these ones?", I'd say lower-case the lot of 'em. To answer the general case, I think I'd go with Rubywine's suggestion of MOSCAPS. --Izno (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to follow the sources. If they all treat it as a proper noun, then we should, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes some sense except many of these terms are capitalized because they are most often referred to by acronym not because they are proper names. Misplaced Pages style guidelines say we should not capitalize terms just because they have an acronym. So capitalization of these terms in sources does not indicate proper name status for terms that are referred to by acronym. Jojalozzo 02:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. Sources will capitalize for their own reasons, or even for no considered reason at all. Misplaced Pages has a fairly anti-capitalization guideline, which is in line with most printed works, but technical manuals are more prone to capitalize jargon that we wouldn't. What's more, many of these sources are technical websites that have no style manual at all or have an incentive to capitalize the terms because they are part of their name. None of the items listed is a proper noun. The name of a technique or method is not going to be capitalized unless there is some special reason to do so. All of the capitalized examples above seem to be so, as Jojalozzo said, only because they are acronyms. -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Note the word "all" in my statement: if every single source capitalizes a spelled-out term, then it's probably a proper noun. If you can find one source that doesn't capitalize the spelled-out term, then it's not a proper noun. (Capitalizing the abbreviation itself is irrelevant.) It's easier to identify such cases if you've got lots of third-party sources available (and if you can't find any third-party sources, then the only relevant capitalization is "AFD"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree. The flaws that can apply to one can apply to all. What's more, the sources are likely to be largely trade publications and websites for companies that capitalize on the technique, so they are all likely to be flawed. In any event, the logic is faulty: the fact that a lot of publications, including the ones we happen to use here, capitalize something does not mean that it is a proper noun. Once again, a lot of people capitalize things they are used to seeing as acronyms and initialisms; that does not make them proper nouns and certainly doesn't mean they should be capitalized at Misplaced Pages. Our capitalization rule is not follow sources, but rather to follow the MOS. It may be "easier" to just ape what sources do, but it is better to put the effort into following MOS. In this case, that is to put each listed item in lowercase. -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again: if all of the sources are "trade publications and websites for companies that capitalize on the technique", then the only capitalization that matters is AFD. If no sources are written by third-party, independent sources—if they are all written by people trying to make money off of it—then the subject is not WP:Notable and the page should be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a several reasons for capitalizing technical terms in source documents. Technical papers in engineering and computer science use capitalization for multiple purposes including

1. focus attention on important concepts
2. match terms with their acronyms
3. confer unique identity to concepts, systems, methods, techniques and approaches

It's clear to me that the first two of these purposes are not covered by our capitalization guidelines. I think it's the third purpose that is giving us trouble since unique identity is one of the requirements for a proper name. I think the authors of these terms think their referents are unique entities but does that mean they are? Jojalozzo 03:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents: "Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Misplaced Pages, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin or transubstantiation." Would this translate to other areas of the project? Jojalozzo 20:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This can be assessed fairly easily. To make use of some of the examples you provided, consider RAD (Rapid Application Development). When written in a sentence, 'rapid application development' refers to the generic process per common English - development of applications in a rapid manner. This is not the same thing as 'Rapid Application Development', which refers to the name of a specific process and ruleset for that same purpose. This is what the definition of a proper noun implies, with 'Rapid Application Development' being a unique entity, and 'rapid application development' being a class that may refer to multiple non-unique instances.

'Agile software development' is correct because the name of the unique entity is 'Agile'. Software development isn't part of the proper name because the unique entity Agile isn't limited to software development and hasn't incorporated those words into its name. Extreme Programming is a proper noun for a unique entity. Adaptive Software Development is a proper noun for a unique entity. Dynamic Systems Development Method is a unique entity within the non-unique class of software development methods.

A general guide for determining if a name is a unique entity or a class is to prefix with 'a' or 'the'. If you're saying "a rapid application development process", you're dealing with a non-unique class and it's not a proper noun. If you're saying "the Rapid Application Development process", you're dealing with a unique entity, and it is a proper noun. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What is your opinion on Agile Modeling?

What is your analysis of the following sentence from Agile Unified Process: "The Agile Unified Process distinguishes between two types of iterations. A Development Release Iteration results in a deployment to the Quality Assurance and/or Demo area. A Production Release Iteration results in a deployment to the Production area. This is a significant refinement to the Rational Unified Process."?

We regularly use 'the' with common nouns, e.g. "the house on the corner", what is the basis for giving these technical terms special treatment? Jojalozzo 16:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The guidance on 'the' vs 'a' was intended to be loose rather than strict, context obviously dictates differing uses. On Agile Modeling, there's not enough detail in the article to identify the topic as either a unique entity or a class. Agile Unified Process is a unique entity, the iterations don't belong to different processes. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hence, the overall answer is, "Capital letters depend on the particular noun" such as "Extreme Programming" (XP) being the name of a unique entity. However, generalized terms are lower-case (such as "object-oriented programming"), plus note how hyphens are often omitted, as with "object oriented" as another issue to consider with capital letters. Now, to clarify the historical confusion with the world at large, in the past, philosophical movements were often capitalized (but no longer by contemporary writers); it was common to see "Existentialism" (now "existentialism") or "Utilitarianism" (today "utilitarianism") or "Socialism". In that manner, a philosophical concept was often capitalized, which is still done for Platonic ideas (or "Ideals"), as with: Truth, Kindness and Beauty. Formerly, every concept name was capitalized, such as "the Automobile in the history of Transportation" versus "the automobile in that garage". However, now it is rare to find in current philosophy books. For that reason, WP editors have suggested following the use of capital letters as found in several sources. Otherwise, use "lazy capitalization" in most Misplaced Pages articles, and that means writing, "the history of transportation" with all lower-case words, but capital letters for people, nations or corporations ("IBM" or "Apple"), etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  Does this mean that once we have varieties of Extreme Programming or other currently unique entities and they become names for general classes of entities ("object-oriented programming" was once a unique entity), then we would stop capitalizing them? Jojalozzo 16:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There's been some kerfuffle about bots adding of identifier links to citations recently. Specifically, whether links to a topical database (aka things like arXiv preprints, Bibcode links to the Astrophysics Data System, Mathematical Reviews, PMC or PMID links to PubMed, SSRN, Zentralblatt MATH, etc...) should be added regardless of the topic of the Misplaced Pages article, or if bots should only add "topic-neutral databases" links (aka doi, JSTOR, ISBN, etc.), unless the bot can guarantee that the identifier links added are "topical".

Each database cover different things differently, some contain "citation coverage" (aka "who cites this journal article"), and complement each other (citation counts will differ, and listings will not mention the same citing journal articles, as e.g. the bibcode link will cover "citations in physics & astronomy" journals, while e.g. the PMID will cover "citations in the medical field"), some might contain links to preprints, links to free digitized versions, etc... One could certainly argue that these identifier links do a great deal to established the reliability and verifiability of a citation and the Misplaced Pages article it is supporting in general.

There's also a great deal to be said about letting people choose which database they prefer. If someone familiar with mathematics databases runs across a Misplaced Pages article on astronomy, and one of the references is indexed in both the astronomy and mathematics databases, why should they be forced to use the astronomy database if they would rather use the mathematics database (despite the astronomy database link being almost certainly better). If someone familiar with medicine journals stumble across a mathematics citation which is indexed in both mathematics and medical database, why should they be forced to use the mathematics database if they would rather see what PubMed has to say about it? If someone from a physics background runs across a medicine citation, why should they be forced to use the medical database if they would prefer using something they are familiar with?

On the other hand, other people feel these identifier links do little more than clutter the citations and confuse the reader, and should be omitted (or at the least should not be added by bots) unless the identifier link can be guaranteed to be on a database that matches the topic of the the Misplaced Pages article, or that it requires human judgment to decide whether or not an arxiv/bibcode/PMC/PMID/MR/SSRN/Zbl link should be added to the citation. This would mean that in the relevant Misplaced Pages articles, you would see something like

This would have consequences for bots such as Citation Bot (which could not add links to arXiv preprints, bibcodes, PMC links, or PMIDs automatically, like it's been doing for the past few years), Bibcode Bot (which would be restricted to astronomy & physics articles), and any future bot such as the hypothetical "SSRN-Bot" or "Mathematical Review-Bot" (which would be restricted to their topics), or users who run scripts to add identifiers to articles such as Rjwilmsi.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Isn't a DOI enough? The links all point to the same journal article; the only difference seems to be some extra details about the citation counts and whatnot. We're not concerned about that as an encyclopedia, we're just citing the article. I mean, it's not even a big deal, so it's sort of depressing that people have been arguing about this, but to me it seems simplest if we use one standard link (e.g., DOI) as anyone who really cares about the other databases will know how to look for the same article on them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• There are two main things a reader wants from a reference: (1) access to the abstract, (2) access to the full text. I am opposed to bots adding any links to references unless the bot has the intelligence to determine that (a) one of those two things is missing, and (b) the added link provides the thing that is missing. I do not believe that adding clutter to reflists is harmless: it makes them harder for ordinary readers to use. I have no objection to human editors adding whatever information they feel is helpful; my issue is only to having this done on a massive scale by bots. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I strongly support adding Bibcodes and Arxiv ids to any and all references which are included in those databases. ADS is an excellent free resource which massively improves the chances of a reader finding a copy of the full text that they can access. Arxiv papers are not the 'final' version, but are always available for free to everyone. This is totally different to the DOI, which in almost all cases redirects to a journal website with an extremely expensive paywall. I'm less familiar with the other identifiers mentioned above, but see little harm in including them. There obviously has to be a line drawn somewhere (no point in have 27 different ids on every reference), but even the most extreme example given above is fine. Modest Genius 16:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I should point out that both ADS and Arxiv cover a huge range of subjects, not just their 'traditional' strengths (in astronomy and particle physics respectively). Modest Genius 16:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• This RfC should've been presented without the pro-bibcode etc. rhetoric. Anyway, PMID/PMC and doi are all I would want/need to see in any bibliography. There's no need to give excessive alternatives; even without any identifier an average user could find any paper in seconds, but a doi and/or PMID provides handy one-click access without bloating the bibliography Jebus989 16:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Even on mathematics articles? And physics articles? Or social science articles? That's awfully self-centered of you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any 'pro-bibcode rhetoric' in the above. It does slant in favour of more IDs, but barely mentions Bibcodes more than any of the other IDs discussed. Modest Genius 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You misquoted me, "pro-bibcode etc." was what I said. I mean the RfC is written primarily as an argument in support of adding a wide variety of accessions, and I hope it doesn't take me picking out sentences for you to realise that. As a non-mathematician, I know of no pubmed equivalent, but if I were to read such an article, and found only the doi, I would definitely try work up the gumption to click it, rather than perusing through 5 alternative links to the same article and choosing my favourite. I'll ignore the personal attack, but I remind you this is a request for comment, not an "agree with me or I will argue with you until you do" Jebus989 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• For reference, I'm for the addition of any and all links on any and all articles. I've edited physics & astronomy articles for as long as I could remember and the various PMIDs and MRs links have never bothered me. In fact I found them to be extremely useful in fixing citations or verifying that the references did support the text (or that they were reliable). It would be utterly catastrophic for Misplaced Pages to disallow bots to add these links by default. Medicine people would lose Citation bot's ability to add the PMID/PMC automatically. Astronomy (and related topics) people would lose Citation bot's ability to add bibcodes. Physics (and related topics) would lose Citation bot's ability to add arxiv preprints. Everyone lose, no one wins.

  For anyone these links truly bother, that could easily be "fixed" with a skin tweak (monobook.js/vector.js). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Putting every single identifier known to man (as well is wikilinking what they are) does seem to produce a vast, confusing sea of messy links which will be meaningless (and possibly distracting) to the average non-academic reader. Idealy there would be a way of hiding these away like we do with ISBN numbers and special:booksources -where clicking on one link would bring up all appropriate identifiers.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I appreciate seeing the two versions of the references side-by-side, which is quite helpful. I think that the default state should be the shorter, topic-specific format. The other way does, indeed, look overly cluttered. I can imagine a reader from the general reading public, not someone who is an aficionado of databases, but just someone wanting to read up on a subject, looking at the lengthier version and having a case of "too much information". I recommend making the topic-specific format the default, with the proviso that any editor may always add more manually, and any WikiProject, by consensus, may request that a bot add more to pages within their project. I also like Nigel Ish's idea of having more but hiding them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Interesting issue. I agree with Looie496 on what users want and that in the short run humans should make these decisions rather than have a proliferation of alternatives added by bots which 99% of readers wouldn't use. Yet the added content is definitely useful. Perhaps in the short run the links at the end of the biblio entry could be compacted, showing just (ArXiv)(PMID)(doi)(JSTOR), each linked to the appropriate source for that biblio entry. This avoids showing the full details of the code to every reader, and sticks to showing human-useful/readable content. Those details could be in HTML comments. In the long run I think this problem should not be solved right in the article, where it takes up vertical space and mind space, perhaps increasingly over time as the number of such outside sites grows. Instead it would be good if all those links the bot would have offered can be offered on the doi page or some wikimedia-specific intermediate page made available when the user clicks on the biblio entry. Might be created on the fly, or static. If static, the bots could add lavishly to that intermediate page and the bibliography user-interface would be uncluttered and easy to use. Not trivial to implement unfortunately. Wikisource might be friendly to it but their agenda is not directing-to-sources but rather offering the sources. (I see that Nigel Ish suggested this too during an edit-conflict. Hot topic!) -- Econterms (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Let me be the third person to endorse Nigel Ish's observation that ideally the links should be there (because they really are useful to someone who knows what they mean) but hidden (because they are confusing clutter to people who don't know what they mean). --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• i support adding as many identifiers as exist. different people will have access to different databases. there might be some reasonable limits similar to books that make sense here also that might be simple enough to get broad support, but i'd rather have more identifier links that are possibly redundant than restrictive rules. generally for books with isbn, oclc and asin are not also listed. pmc and arxiv are really good and should always be listed if available. doi usually doesn't go to a full free-access copy, but many people have institutional access. jstor only shows the first page. pmid and bibcode show bibliographic info with an abstract. this is the first time i've seen the mr database and it doesn't look all that useful from this example. it looks like a link to a doi that goes to jstor.  —Chris Capoccia ⁄_C 17:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose bots automatically adding any information to Misplaced Pages articles. Bots can never replace a living person. Bots are very useful tools that editors can use to research information (including citation information). However, a thinking person needs to review the bot results before the information is actually placed into an article. Even something as simple as a spell or grammar checker bot can cause all sorts of unexpected errors and problems. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:BOTPOL obviously disagrees with you here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • So you want to ban all interwiki bots? Funny idea. Bulwersator (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think that Errant's comment on ANI and Nigel Ish's comment here have got to the bottom of this: we should focus on working out how we can configure a default display of the citation that is not crowded, while also allowing the option of displaying the full identifier information. That ought to give the simplified display desired by casual readers and (maybe at one click) the full information and options desired by more knowledgeable readers or researchers. I think this RFC should be to discuss how to display the information, not on whether it should be there in the first place. Rjwilmsi 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support adding a variety of identifiers/sources, but I want a way to reduce the "clutter". Since that seems to be a dominant issue here, something like this would be sufficient for me (trade-off seeing actual identifier values for space and broader choice):

F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration) (1995). "Observation of top quark production in pp collisions with the Collider Detector at Fermilab". Physical Review Letters 74 (14): 2626–2631. arXiv:hep-ex/9503002. Bibcode 1995PhRvL..74.2626A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2626. PMID 10057978.

becoming

F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration) (1995). "Observation of top quark production in pp collisions with the Collider Detector at Fermilab". Physical Review Letters 74 (14): 2626–2631. arXiv. Bibcode. doi. PMID.

I also understand a certain identifier may be more useful than others based on the topic/journal, so something like |primaryidentifier=doi could be employed:

F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration) (1995). "Observation of top quark production in pp collisions with the Collider Detector at Fermilab". Physical Review Letters 74 (14): 2626–2631. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2626. arXiv. Bibcode. PMID.

I realize it's impossible to please everyone, but I also don't want "clutter" to come in the way of presenting our readers with a wide selection of database links. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• As a note to the "let's tweak the information", that's fine and all, but you have to remember that Misplaced Pages should be for all people. "Compact links" such as ] will be horrible for people with screenreaders, and will be horrible when the page is printed. The only way to "tweak" it without affecting accessibility and print versions is to do it via skin tweaks (monobook.js/vector.js/etc...).Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• We should consider not only what readers see, but also what editors see. When the citation becomes of excessive size, the article becomes difficult to edit. The idea solution would be a link to a sort of automated source ombudsman, where a reader could specify which libraries are nearby and/or which databases the reader has paid access to, and the automated ombudsman would display which sources provide the full text at no incremental cost to that reader. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's impossible to do, as there is no "one true identifier" for everything. DOI is the most popular, but not all databases are queryable via DOI. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Given that different users have different databases they can access, it seems obvious that "anyone can edit" implies that whichever such resources the user has available should be linked. For the fortunate few with institutional access to such databases that does not always extend to all databases or even all of a particular database. My access to JSTOR, for example, is only fulltext for a portion of the serials it contains. Providing diversity of linkages gives editors and readers the best possible chance of finding the source in a repository which is freely accessible (for them). When we choose to omit these links we effectively inhibit people who could otherwise read the source from doing so. That cannot be a constructive practice. A little blue on the screen is a small price to pay. I have no objection to hiding it in hovertext or some such technical approach so long as the linkage is easily available to users that want it. The issue of trusting humans more than bots to make the call misses the fact that many of our human editors are very weak at citations: we're still fighting naked urls! While it should be simple for a human editor to remove links that don't work, and bots should respect such decisions, humans should not delete them simply because a link didn't work for them. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request‎ shows us everyday the utility of pooling access. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment on fancy display technology: this is a red herring and can't help us. Misplaced Pages pages need to work also as PDFs (onscreen with simple hyperlinks or printed out on paper); on a variety of mobile devices which may not support the concept of "hover"; on browsers where JavaScript is disabled, with screen reader technology, and where the Misplaced Pages page is being mirrored by another website. Any option that requires an account (such as a user-specific skin tweak) is also a non-starter as nearly all of our readers are not logged in. It is an important attribute that one can select the display text and copy/paste it: something that popup bits would make impossible. Colin° 18:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—Perhaps we could wrap the identifiers with an inline expandable display? See here for example. This way the text would normally be hidden unless somebody wants to look up the reference. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't know if that could be done, but the default should be the expanded start, otherwise this would create a drastic clash between "manual" citations and template citations. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Leaving it default expanded would make it pointless to implement; no viewer is ever going to go through the list and contract the views. But "manual" citations could probably implement this using a separate template for inline identifiers. RJH (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Couldn't be done with manual citations, as each identifier template would "condensed" individually, rather than globally. You could place them in a wrapper, but that is an extremely convoluted option. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I see such a wrapper template for use in a manual citations as a variant of the citation template, sans the non-identifier information. Shrug, no matter. RJH (talk)
• I oppose bots adding these links to articles until the clutter is reduced by appropriate template magic/user preferences/CSS. Once such a solution is implemented, I will change by !vote to support. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Something similar to what RJHall and Nigel Ish said would be the best course to take here: give all citation databases and let the reader pick which one to use. Edge cases such as the ones Colin identified can still see the current format. That said, getting to the crux of the issue, I don't see a point in removing existing bibcodes/PMIDs because of a few editors' perceptions of the utility of the citation databases. Give the readers more credit. Titoxd 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• If we do go down the 'keep them but reduce the clutter' route, could it not be hidden behind a 'show/hide' bit of Javascript, like collapsed navigation boxes? That way it still shows up when printed / on screen readers, but reduces the clutter for everyone else. Modest Genius 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  Show/hide boxes work exactly the same on modern screen readers as they do for other people. I would favour keeping the links expanded as they are now, if only because we shouldn't add more bloated JavaScript to pages if we can help it; the citation links don't cause any problems for screen readers. I don't have any strong opinions about which databases should be used. Graham87 00:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Information is good. —SW—  20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Certain of these identifier can be assumed to be topical: (1) arXiv: if an article is on the arXiv, then the author put it there, (2) MR (aka Mathematical Reviews) & Zentralblatt: only lists math articles, so for any article that has an MR, the MR should be topical. I don't know enough about the other identifiers to say, but I don't think that non-topical identifiers should be automatically listed, except for ISBN and DOI (ISSN, too maybe?); by which I mean, I think it would be better to keep the displayed identifiers restricted to topical ones, ISBN, and DOI, but I'm all for adding other ones to the source code, but have them commented out, or somesuch. Additionally, at least the two identifiers I have listed provide useful information that I believe should be linked to from the citation on wikipedia, (and if a bot can do it instead of me, I'm all for that). For the arXiv, this includes a free copy of the paper (though they are sometimes not the same version as the print copy), and for MR & Zbl, this (almost always) includes a summary of the paper, as well as a link to the papers that cite the paper in question. RobHar (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• The only requirement we have for citations is that they identify the source of the text used to write the article text. A plain text standard printed citation or a raw URL both satisfy this requirement, though each can be improved upon. We are careful not to add external links to articles just because someone thinks they are useful and similarly we should be careful not to turn our References section into an external link farm. We are an encyclopaedia, not a compendium of journal database links. Perhaps folk should put pressure on the various journal database websites to do some cross referencing themselves. It shouldn't be too hard for PubMed to link to ADS, say. After all, indexing journals is their job, not ours. As Looie496 says, the aim of our convenience links should be to give the reader access to the full text and the abstract. Access to the full text is complicated by the fact that nearly all our readers will lack the necessary subscriptions for subscription-only texts, or the text may not be online at the publisher's website. So services like PMC and arXiv provide a backup for the full text. The databases themselves provide useful functionality but this is very much secondary to our purpose. There is a strong consensus for linking to PubMed for bio-medical papers and I dare say the same goes for astronomy/physics papers and the ADS. If the paper is only indexed in one of the databases, then there is probably merit in linking without considering the topic of the paper.
  The bot should only perform actions where there is a clear consensus and where the edit is useful. So unless we come to a consensus that linking to PubMed and linking to ADS is desirable always, then the bot needs to work out what kind of paper the citation is for. A bot could use the journal to decide the topic in most cases. For journals like Science and Nature, that cross the fields, then the WP article may give a clue as to whether the paper is a life or physical science topic. I think using only the WP article as a guide is rather crude and only reliable for a subset. So, in summary, PMC/arXiv are probably always useful unless the bot can tell that a link to a free online full text is already present. DOI is always useful. Where both a PMID and bibcode are possible, the bot should consider the journal and possibly additionally the article topic and pick the most appropriate -- and if unsure then don't add. -- Colin° 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd like to see PMID links and ISBNs whenever possible, even for non-medical articles (which might, after all, contain some medicine-related information). I don't care about the others, but I suspect that if I always want to see links to foo, then someone else will always want to see bar, so I'm in favor of listing everything as the default. There should, however, be some sort of opt-out system, like an invisible template that editors can place in an article to say "Bibcodes (or whatever) not wanted in this article, thanks". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support If you can get a source for free then its a no brainer to add the (legal) links --Guerillero | My Talk 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. More pointers is better than none or a few useless ones, which can still be deleted manually if they are a splinter in an editor's mind, right? Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Bots should not be doing controversial edits. The important stuff here is the citation; once that is given, all other links are convenience. Adding a lot of them makes the citation itself, which can be used in whatever tool the reader has available, harder to find; if, as some arguments here would suggest, we add links to every conceivable citation system, our articles will be buried in kilobytes of linkcruft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I generally support some modest quantity of redundant IDs, because they sometimes can be helpful in tracking down an article (for example when a DOI stops resolving, which is a moderately frequent occurrence). I guess I'm a weak oppose on the subject of having bots add them, however. Having a bot add a PMC has rarely seemed like an intrusion (even if there is already a free link of some kind), but kerfuffles of this sort seem to be par for the course when bots are involved and I'm not sure how a bot would know how many IDs is enough. Perhaps there is a middle ground, like an approved list of IDs which are bot-addable. But if we can't resolve it that way, falling back to human editors doesn't strike me as a horrifying thought. Kingdon (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I support adding additional info to citations. As others have pointed out, these are useful for readers who have access to different databases. And many are topical, such as the Math Reviews number or the PubMed number, and will only be available for articles in a certain discipline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Anything that helps our readers get to the original sources used for our articles is a benefit to all. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: The proposed solution does not scale in the long term. I would suggest a solution similar to that for either Books or Map Coordinates; in each case a link leads to a master list where the identifier is auto-integrated with resource links. However, the central-linking solution would need to be refined somewhat for the present solution, as the consistency of ISBN or lat-lon is not present for scholarly articles yet (DOI approaches, but has not reached 100% penetrance ... anyone have stats on that?). What might need to be done is a two step process - create links via bot on a central resource page, then review links via bot for ability to resolve to a target, followed by either link culling or link annotation (verified, unverified, unavailable type flags). I've not read through the comments, so I don't know whether this is a new idea or just a rehash of an old one oft added above. Thanks for considering this, nonetheless. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Fully, strongly support. Note, I am not a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine person, nor a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Astronomy person (actually, I am a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemistry person).

1) PMIDs are useful, they are available for a lot of articles, they do provide extra information over a DOI (DOIs directly link to the article, generally the search capabilities of the site where that is hosted is limited to the site of the journal - the page on PubMed is generally cross-site). And that is not only true for articles in the medical corner, it is not only true for statements with a medical implication on articles outside the medical corner. When a PMID is available, it should be added, it does lead you to more info.

1 (too)) BibCodes are equally useful, they are available for another set of articles, they do provide extra information over a DOI (vide supra, comment on usefulness of PMIDs). That is not only true for the astronomy corner, it is not only true for statements with an astronomy implication on articles outside the medical corner. When a BibCode is available, it should be added, it does lead you to more info.

2) the number of journals that is overlapping is quite minimal, they are mainly the general science journals (Nature, Science and such), those articles benefit of identifiers all over Misplaced Pages. I would be disappointed if CitationBot would not add a PMID to an article in chemistry (as it does already), I would be equally disappointed if Bibcode bot would not add a BibCode to an article in chemistry. Or about whichever subject.

3) it is not up to us to decide whether an identifier is useful for others. I can bring up many examples where a PMID is useless clutter for me, I can bring up just as many examples where a BibCode is useless clutter for me. I can even find examples where both are useless clutter for me. The problem in both statements is 'for me'. Sure, I can guess that in most of these cases will also be true for most other readers of the text, but then we get to 'most' - it may be useful for someone, and that should be enough. (Yes, in most cases, I am interested in the article, not in what links to the article, which articles are cited by the article and how often those articles are cited, or articles that cite the article, who wrote it, where it is published, a direct link to the article will do, DOI is enough, per Fetchcomms, thank you).

4) I am active in subject A, and for references we have a database linked to subject B and a database linked to subject C. Now, subject B nor subject C are topical for subject A. But both the database of subject B and the database of subject A do give more info than the DOI only would, they both provide extra info, extra search capabilities. Unbiased addition of both is then leading to more info, as obviously no choice can be made whether B or C will be better.

5) Regarding 'clutter' - these identifiers are in references, not in prose. Reading references is like reading a telephone book: no-onehardly anybody does it for fun. When reading a reference you already have to go through a whole set of 'clutter', journal codecs, year of publishing, volume, issue, pagenumbers, &c. &c. (and all presented in different ways .. per convention in the local subject). One extra code does not 'clutter up the reference'. When you are used to code XXXX:1234, then when code YYYY is not there, you scan for the 'XXXX:' and click on the code next to it, when code YYYY:4321, ZZZZ:5678, CCCC:9876 and PPPP:4578 are there, you scan for the 'XXXX:' and click on the code next to it. It does not add clutter, at all.

6) Now, say, we have a medical article with a medical statement with a medical reference with, obviously a PMID. But that medical article turns out to be also in a astronomy database, and the astronomy database gets added as identifier. When that is not a general journal (Nature, Science) but something specific, then I might wonder 'why is this article in an astronomy database, the article does not have any astronomical content at all?' .. it may turn out, that some info from the article is missing, since there actually turns out to be an astronomical side to the content. A great incentive to look further into that aspect.

7) (unlikely scenario) - say database XXXX goes down (temporarily, or is locally blocked behind a firewall, something I could imagine in places/countries where information is restricted), then you have at least access via database YYYY. If XXXX and YYYY provide equal enhanced information over ZZZZ, then even if the article is in the subject of XXXX, then YYYY may be useful when XXXX for some reason goes down (or whatever).

All in all, I see no reason to not add all identifiers everywhere. They may be useful to some, and that should be enough. --Dirk Beetstra 08:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you really think that the references contain too much clutter, then I am sure that it is possible to put something in your user stylesheet or javascript that reduces references to just the info you want. E.g. which filters out BibCodes from the parsed text, or another identifier, or even reduces a full-text reference to just 'XXXX' when identifier XXXX is available in that reference. --Dirk Beetstra 08:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. I know that cross-namespace links are being frowned upon. But what if citationbot does something smart with the transcluded templates (the {{cite DOI/123456}}-type references)? --Dirk Beetstra 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S.-Note: See #'Fancy display tech'. --Dirk Beetstra 08:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose
  • cluttering references with anything beyond a doi; once there is a doi, users can trivially retrieve whatever bibliographic information in whatever database;
  • automatizing controversial edits;
  • doing so while there is an ongoing discussion. -- Marie Poise (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Trivial? Really? I for one have no idea how to find an arXiv preprint just from the DOI. Similarly for ADS. And I use both of those databases every day. And remember that getting any information whatsoever out of a DOI depends upon the journal website providing it (without being hidden behind a paywall). Journals generally do NOT link to citation databases for the simple reason that it reduces the chances of anyone actually paying for the article. Modest Genius 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose bot-induced clutter of footnotes. The advocates of this mechanized mess have their opinions, but it is clear from the comments above that there is dissent and they should NOT be assuming consensus here. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment not all links have similar value to all readers - so I would oppose limiting links to only one standard (unless links to the others are directly available through that one standard). For example, PMIDs are the most valuable to me, because my library affiliation provides full-text access for a huge range of pubs when linking via PubMed - any other link is far less useful. I would imagine similar considerations apply for other users (and database links other than PubMed - so I'm not simply arguing for PMIDs). If it's possible to make this a reader-level customization for display then that would be great (but might be a resource hog); absent such customization, I would favor inclusive linking. -- Scray (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support adding links - Not all educational institutes buy access to every single database. Thus I think we should add links to every database the journal's article appears in to help ensure that people reading the Misplaced Pages article will be able to find the full text without having to go look up the article in the database they have access to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment How about DOI plus a single link to a page that can have as many links as you want, like Special:BookSources? --Kkmurray (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Although I support adding more information to citations, I am troubled by some automated edits. An article gets an automatic edit, it tickles many watch lists, and then many people check the edit. The bots also seem to add a lot of text to the reference that many users will ignore. Bots may pull a citation away from the intended citation to a different one; each fixing something that it perceives is wrong, and the next bot "improving" the citation further. A different approach might be better. The cite/citation templates could have a check for sources link; that link would include some unique information, but it would go to a wikipedia page that would run a (possibly precomputed) query for other sources. The bots could work on fixing the info in the second database without disturbing the article page. They could flag or correct basic info in the article (e.g., adding dates, authors, etc.), but they would not be edit the article merely to include another opaque identifier for some data source. If an article starts getting a lot of click throughs for a source, then the article could be edited to include a direct link for that source. Updates could be limited to so many per month per article. Glrx (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Too many identifiers. Bots should only add topical ids, like pmid for medical articles, arxiv for physics, etc. A bot shouldn't be cluttering refs with multiple redundants ids. I would support a less ambitious bot that added only a minimal number of ids. I also support bots that add ids to references where there is no id, that tag non-existing ids, that tag possibly wrong ids, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment That different editors have different preferred citation display styles is perfectly reasonable. The current citation setup holds the raw data to support it, but doesn't offer much flexibility in rendering. There's been a lot of debate trying to get display preferences out by changing the raw data going in, but that solution can't work. The way forward must be to implement editor display preferences to differentiate between the source fields available and the fields shown to the editor in the rendered page. Of course is must be compatible with screen readers, mobile browsers, print versions, usability etc. and not break existing data, but we have some very knowledgeable technical editors and template writers, I'm sure a neat and effective solution can be found. I really think we must focus our effort on collaborating on neat and sensible editor display preferences. Rjwilmsi 22:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. No real reason why citations couldn't be displayed according to certain preferences. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• See my comment above about fancy display tech. Not going to work. Does anyone know the ratio of readers to editors? It is high enough that our individual preferences are pretty irrelevant, certainly so for something unconnected with editing. I bet the "let's fix this with editor preferences" solution is probably one of those perenial suggestions that keep getting shot down. Remember date formatting as an editor preference. That turned out well. Not. Colin° 07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Plus this suggestion does smell a bit of "Once I can make this problem go away for me then I'll be happy." The real issue is that we've gone away from thinking about what the core requirements of references in an encyclopaedia are, and have started adding "useful" bells and whistles. Our sources don't add these extras to their references sections. And just like our WP:EL policy, we need to draw a line and consider what is essential to our purpose. Colin° 07:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  The 'fancy display tech' does not necessarily mean that it should only be restricted to logged in users (there is also global CSS and JS ..). And, using CSS and JS is only one way (but indeed, suboptimal), but it may also be possible in other ways (/me puts on thinking cap again). The two main opposing concerns I think there are is that it is useful for certain people (seen that PMIDs are everywhere, and not only added by Citationbot, also by human editors), but that it does clutter our references (which is for another group of editors clearly a big problem). Removing the extra identifiers leaves out info which is used but removes the clutter, having them there clutters, but gives us extra information. Say for yourself, you use the PMID link in the articles where you have them - I do as well, but my 'WP:MED-activity' is just on a thin overlapping border. I would miss them, badly. Removing them all would also mean to remove them from WP:MED, or allowing them in WP:MED means that other projects would also have the possibility to allow them .. and that would just continue the controversy, inevitably WP:MED and WP:Astronomy will overlap, and then the fight comes in how much, and ... do I need to continue? --Dirk Beetstra 07:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  See #'Fancy display tech'. --Dirk Beetstra 08:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC on removing or adding these links -- that would be an issue for the MOS -- it is about bot edits. Most people are happy with these links when added by human beings after consideration as to the utility of them. After all, the citations aren't inserted by a bot, so there was a human involved when they first got added. The issue that started this is that a bot is adding these simply because it can and not necessarily because it should. That's a fundamental issue wrt all bot edits. The question of whether it should quite clearly has little consensus one way or the other and the bot owners need to grasp this and start applying Misplaced Pages:Bot policy rather than endlessly arguing with the rest of to accept their personal opinion. The compromise position of only adding them when the chances of utility are very high (based on the topical relevance of the journal being cited and the article containing the citation) seems likely to upset the least number of people. Bots should tackle the low-hanging fruit. Colin° 08:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is where the issue is .. I think that these links should be added, irregardless of the topic, irregardless of which identifier, irregardless of who adds it, even irregardless if it is by a bot or not. That the bot does it does not make any difference. The underlying issue is not a bot issue, it is a MOS-issue. --Dirk Beetstra 08:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you think that, then create another RFC and raise it at MOS+world. This RFC is on bot additions. Look at the title. It is a separate issue because what you are demanding is that not only are these links added by bots, but that they should be always added by humans too and never removed. That's imposing a citation requirement above what is necessary to actually cite the source. Considering that citations are an issue where WP typically refuses to impose rules, you don't stand much chance. Remember that even using templates isn't mandatory and is never likely to be. Colin° 09:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do stick to that .. as I do think that the bots should be adding these, as I do think they are useful, everywhere. In that way, I don't need to bother finding them myself. --Dirk Beetstra 09:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly support adding identifiers that (1) point directly to the publisher's official version of a paper (doi, or jstor); (2) provide unofficial but free versions of papers (arxiv, or sometimes but not always bibcode), or (3) provide third-party reviews of citations rather than just a copy of the abstract (sometimes but not always mr). I don't have a strong opinion about identifiers that don't meet these criteria. And I also prefer not to see both doi and jstor when they end up both going to the same place. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Some similar themes

This is beginning to look like a vote, which of course nobody wants. I've looked through the comments made and identified a few key positions:

1. Bots shouldn't be adding content at all.
2. Bots shouldn't be adding content which isn't proven to be useful. Specifically, bots should only be adding content in the case where a) the article lacks a link to the abstract / full text in question, and the bot can provide the ones that are missing (and only the ones that are missing).
3. Bots should add topic-specific databases, and WikiProjects should be in charge of declaring which references they want on article under their purview. Bots should respect that.
4. Bots shouldn't be adding anything until the clutter can be reduced, after which they can add what they like.
5. The task is too hairy and controversial to be left to bots except the least controversial cases.
6. Bots should add whatever they can.

Furthermore, there's a tangential issue of which databases we should be using:

1. None. The citation itself is sufficient to enable academically-inclined readers to find a paper, we not not exist to send traffic to these databases, and burying citations in metadata simply makes them harder to use.
2. DOI and nothing else. One reliable and (mostly) comprehensive source is better than a hodgepodge of field-specific or less well-adopted ones.
3. One appropriate field-specific database per topic.
4. Specific databases if at all possible. DOI is often useless as it sends readers looking for the full text off to a publisher's site, which usually means a paywall.
5. Add whatever we can. The more links there are, the better the probability of the reader having the link to the database he prefers, and the better the chance of full text being available.
6. Add as many as possible, but use a higher-level citation system so that the individual databases are hidden behind a secondary reference page (like with ISBN tags).
7. Add as many as possible, but alter the citation templates to produce a more compact layout.
8. Add as many as possible, but use user preferences in conjunction with CSS / JS magic to display only the user's preferred format(s).

Are there any positions which aren't supported by the above summaries? Note that this is explicitly not a call for votes on which of the above editors prefer: it's just an attempt to summarise what's been said so far.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Before discussing any further I request that bots be stopped while this discussion is ongoing. If bot owners don't restrain themselves, administrative action would be appropriate, as I suggested on WP:AN. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Key position 4 is not in line with the others. I would advocate a combination of position 2 (only DOI and link to freely accessible full text ) and position 4 (if a technical solution is found that allows me to configure the way I am shown citation templates, I no longer care about superfluous database links). -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

'Fancy display tech'

Without CSS or JS .. available to ALL users:

"The roadblock to sustainability" (do click the 'full ref' to see what happens). We might even be able to minimise other parts as well in this way (whee .. include an et al. if there are more than 2 in the wikitext, but show them all on the transcluded template, whee .. reusability and consistent display throughout Misplaced Pages). I know this gives a cross namespace wikilink (which should then be hidden in print) but this might satisfy both sides. Of course, before citationbot would move this citation to the subpage there will still be cluttered references in the Misplaced Pages pages, etc. etc. Just giving an idea. --Dirk Beetstra 08:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Dirk. Great work. I like it very much, and tend to think this is about the solution we were looking for. Issue number could also be reserved for the full ref display. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote, did anyone bring this to the attention of the other operators of citation-maintenance bots? This should be 'coded' by them (moving the template into template space, add (where missing) all they can find, and hide the fields which are deemed 'additional', leaving only the bare ref). --Dirk Beetstra 09:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note 2, thinking about it - maybe it can be done even automated by template coding, what is the namespace a transcluded template detects? Template-space or mainspace? --Dirk Beetstra 09:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding note 2: yes, it works. You could wrap parameters in the template with and , and they don't display if the template is transcluded in mainspace, but is when it is on the template space. Then adding hanging '] at the end will display the link to the full display on the specific ref template (where all hidden parameters are shown). In this way, bots could go on a rampage of adding them everywhere without clogging the output on the wikipage, while for those (few?) that would need a PMID, BibCode or whatever on whichever article in whatever topic could follow the link to the 'full ref', as displayed below. --Dirk Beetstra 10:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Journal name should be linked to our article about the journal, where the ISSN be found. Therefore ISSN should go to full ref. -- Marie Poise (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning abbreviated author lists: This is a must because in some fields (particle physics) there are 100 and more authors. Major physics journals have the rule: If there are more four authors, then they print just one author name, followed by "et al.". -- Marie Poise (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation template should get a new field "abbreviated_title", to be used in case of very long paper titles. The short view would then show the abbreviated title, ending with "...", and the full ref would provide the full title. -- Marie Poise (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That the journal name should be linked is something that needs to be tweaked in the core citation template, which I did not touch. I somewhat agree, though they are inconsistently used, not all redirects may be there, and there are many typos in those fields (where are the bots .....).

ISSN can be hidden, this is all draft work in my userspace, see User:Beetstra/Cite journal (the 'template') and User:Beetstra/Cite Doi/10.1073/pnas.0812570106 (the 'reference'). Feel free to tweak further.

Authors is now set to 'dislay two in ref, display 8 in the full ref display', both can be tweaked to anything reasonable (again, feel free to tweak, and the number can be overridden as well). I agree, in mainspace we don't need to show 50 authors, 1 is enough. For the others it is sometimes informative to have ALL there (especially when the authors have wiki articles, neat way of finding articles by author on Misplaced Pages). --Dirk Beetstra 12:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Before going into further detail and implementing the missing tweaks, I guess we need opinions by others whether we are on the right track. Bot operators, Template authors, all those who have commented above: please show your support or raise your objections! -- Marie Poise (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• You've picked the DOI as your unique id. Not every paper has a DOI. Anyway, I can suggest you move this interesting discussion elsewhere. Remember too that journal citations aren't just used by science editors and that many many editors hand-edit their citations and wouldn't dream of using a template. You'll need MOS approval for changing citation formats and a huge discussion if you are creating a new kind of page on WP to hold full references. All this may be useful but isn't relevant to this RFC other than further indication that, based on current WP formatting, an over verbose citation is unwelcome. Colin° 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, an editor would only type something like <ref>{{DOI/10.1073/pnas.0812570106}}</ref>, which would then automatically be expanded into short form (in-page) and long form (separate page). Much more comfortable than typing a conventional citation ... I am sure most editors would learn it very quickly. -- Marie Poise (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Dirk Beestra's original post: Actually that option specific option is horrible. First what happens when it's used on multiple articles, none of which following the same citation style? The first follows "J Smith, C Nader, J Mepithamonuous (2008)", the second uses "Smith, J.; Nader, C.; Mepithamonuous, J. (2008)" and the third uses "Smith J, Nader C, Mepithamonuous J; (2008)". Second that would require SEVERAL MILLIONS of templates overall. And articles of any decent size would transclude 20, 40, or even 100s of such reference templates. Third, this removes identifiers that SHOULD BE present in the article. Say people for whatever reason, decide that PMIDs are usefull for the article (which has 20 citations). They now need to edit 20 different templates, and then need to understand this weird citation setup. Some people have trouble understanding the current templates, now we're asking them to understand the details of transclusions, along with the <noinclude>, <includeonly> tags???

The only viable tweaks are via CSS (skins) or JS (which I'm not 100% sure is achievable anyway). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Marie's above suggestion is very similar to what Martin's {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} already do in template space with user:citation bot's support. Once expanded this produces which in turn produces , both linking to a common subpage. I'm not a real fan of that approach, but it more or less works and has done so for some time now. It is easy, and quickly gets citations that look pretty. The chief difficulty is that it does not cater well to having article-specific formatting of citations: the citation looks the same in all the articles that transclude the template.

Journal names in full and ISSN could both easily be relegated to the "full ref", replaced in the inline version with the ISO abbreviation, wikilinked to the article about the journal: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.. Of course we don't have articles for all journals, so we'd need to decide whether the redlinks are worth having. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes they exist, and they already create maintenance nightmares. We certainly don't need to systematically move references to the template namespace, or to make them look different upon transclusions. That would be even worse. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how transcluding the data from articlespace subpages would be any real improvement over templatespace ones. Citations really are a different kind of content: structured bibliographic data, shared across many articles, and they are not really specific to en or even to wikipedia. It's long past time we got serious about a more robust database for citation data. Perhaps some active teamwork with the Open Library should be pursued.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree extremly strongly with hiding full journal names - not every reference is to an academic journal (I suspect citation templates are used much more for non-academic sources than for academic sources), and we should always be presenting references so that they are instantly comprehensible to as may people as possible, not just editors and readers who are familiar with a particular academic field and with the peculiar abbrevaitions for academic jounals - in my opinion journal titles should not normally be abbreviated.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Some replies:

• Regarding 'not having a DOI' - the same trick can be done with {{cite PMID}} and others. One could even say, that if the 'Cite DOI' format is used, then the DOI only is standard shown (more: vide infra), if 'cite PMID' format is used, it does show the PMID and (when it becomes available, the DOI as well).
• Regarding 'millions of templates' - we already have thousands and thousands of those 'cite doi/<doi>' templates transcluded.
• Regarding 'different forms of reference formatting' - If I see it correctly, the bot decides to create these '/<doi>' templates, and re-uses them where possible. So this happens already.
• Regarding 'sometimes you want to show the PMID' - I am sure that we can do things to override (it is not to say that 'cite doi/<doi>' can not have parameters to override certain behaviour). Or maybe 'cite PMID' for PMID/DOI combinations, 'cite DOI' for DOI only, 'cite BibCode' for BibCode/DOI combinations (the rest of the 'less important' parameters go into the template-display, the others show in the article.
• Regarding 'full journal names' - I would suggest to use the FULL journal name as default, even in mainspace. So 'Journal of the American Chemical Society', not 'J. Am. Chem. Soc.', and certainly not 'JACS' (sorry, chemistry talk). But those are things that can be set anyway in the template. --Dirk Beetstra 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• As a quick example, to show the PMID: Ref, vs.
• @Headbomb - I am not using user-set nowikis. This is all template-programming. User settings are fine for logged-in users, but it does still clutter the references for those that don't have the settings (and I do agree, some of these become extremely long while they do not give more info in the article, though I do, firmly, advocate that all information should be available, at most 'a click away' (whether it is a JAVA-show-button programmed into the box (see e.g. articles transcluding chemboxes, where some necessary identifiers are hidden with JAVA, no-one is going to read them, not many will actually use them (starting from Misplaced Pages, but some do), and they make the page show up in internet-searches, as it is thé way of finding information on a compound), or via a 'click here for more info'-type of option (which does not require JAVA, which still some people have turned off). None of the solutions is perfect, the choice is, not having parameters which some may use, having a full reference on each page which clutters the list, having them hidden for logged-in users only, having some JAVA script connected to the template, or using a link to the full ref, showing a partial ref on the page. I am not saying this is thé solution, but I think it combines some of the objections and advantages. --Dirk Beetstra 10:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Reflist for 'Fancy display tech' section

1. Beddoe, R.; Costanza, R. et al. (Feb 2009). "Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies" (Free full text). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 2483–2489. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812570106. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=19240221. (full ref)
2. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 19240221 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 19240221 instead.
3. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812570106 , please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi= 10.1073/pnas.0812570106 instead.
4. Beddoe, R.; Costanza, R. et al. (Feb 2009). "Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies" (Free full text). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 2483–2489. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812570106. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=19240221. (full ref)
5. Beddoe, R.; Costanza, R. et al. (Feb 2009). "Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies" (Free full text). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 2483–2489. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812570106. PMID 19240221. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=19240221. (full ref)

Are articles about WMF Projects exempt from WP:N?

The background

Recently, there were two nominations to delete two articles on sister projects. One ended in Delete (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khowar Misplaced Pages), and the other ended in a WP:IAR Keep (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Waray-Waray Misplaced Pages).

I overreacted on the latter deletion debate and lost my temper partly because I could not see any reasonable justification on why anyone would go around AfDing what is basically a part of this very same site. I assumed malicious wikilawyering and lashed out, which is not quite AGF and very uncivil, so apologies for that. Nonetheless, after a few hours of getting back to my usual work, I think I've gained back enough perspective to not truly care if the consensus is to delete all of them, even if I do favor keeping them strongly.

There are currently nothing about this in any of our policies, so I thought I should try and get a consensus from the community for one. Note that this is my first time doing anything like this, and I'd really prefer to simply write articles. But it's an important question.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue:

I'm sure everyone is already aware that the English Misplaced Pages is only one of the many Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects under the WMF. We have articles about them in here, in the same way that other Wikipedias have articles about us.

However, people may not be aware that a great deal of of those articles rely disproportionately on primary sources and trivial mentions and would thus fail WP:N. Surprising yes, but this includes even our own article on Wikimedia Commons.

Given how all WMF projects are interconnected and actually rely on each other, should we be treating other WMF projects like external sites and require that they pass WP:N? Other language Wikipedias are used in our interlanguage features, and we do not subject that to WP:EL, do we? There are various advertisements for WMF-related drives and we also do not subject that to WP:NOTSOAPBOX.

The smaller language Wikipedias are still growing, and I believe it is our responsibility to encourage their growth rather than leave them to fend for themselves by basically disowning them. The home page for Misplaced Pages (http://www.wikipedia.org/) makes it clear we are one project, despite usually having different users and different rules. Like us, they can not exactly advertise, and without exposure given willingly by other 'mainstream' Wikipedias, they would flounder and die, which leaves the entire project poorer. Like us, they're also volunteers and thus do not exactly have a POV to push, a COI, or any other interests that goes against our own.

We all share the same goal of free knowledge.

Many people also just see a rule, and do not ask why there was such a rule in the first place. WP:N in this instance is actually a guideline (not set in stone) and was actually formulated to "stop indiscriminate inclusion of topics". And I don't think that applies to fellow Wikipedias.

It is my opinion therefore, that articles of other language Wikipedias and other WMF projects should be exempted from WP:N, per common sense (which might seem weak, discuss). But, they should still follow all other policies on WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc.

Please keep the discussions below in a bulleted format (Oppose, Support, Neutral) followed by a brief rationale. Discussions should be in the Discussion subsection, please do not reply directly in the !Votes subsection. Thanks.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

!Votes

• Exempt - I consider this part of our internal operations and feel that all projects under the WMF banner should be exempt. It is a benefit to our readers to know about our other projects. It is also a benefit to us to have exposure and encourage readers to volunteer for those other projects. We shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot over this, plus IAR and COMMON tell us we should do what's in the best interest of the project. I would expand that to mean all projects. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Exempt - see comments in discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Exempt - It would very hypocritical of us to say that any WMF project article gets a free pass when many other articles are deleted on regular basis (not that the latter is wrong). This doesn't mean that project can't be listed on the article about the WMF with a redirect in place. --MASEM (t) 11:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt. Wikimedia-internal navel gazing should be done in project space, which is also the only place where references to Misplaced Pages-internal pages can reasonably be used for verification, and where trivia such as statistics of page counts, article count milestones or number of contributors are normally of any interest. In article space, either there is substantial coverage of the project in reliable sources (so that it meets general notability guidelines), or we have nothing legitimate to say about it anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt unfortunately. I consider myself a "weak inclusionist" and I'm sympathetic to obsidian's argument. However, I also believe that our deletion processes need to not only be fair but, as much as possible, "appear to be fair" to outsiders, new users, and even experienced editorsexopedians not familiar with our "rules" and the special internal definitions we give to terms such as "notability" and "consensus". (that's why I don't like to close "1 !vote" AFDs as "delete". I can't with a straight face call it a "consensus" when a newbie asks me about the deletion on my talk page) Therefore, if someone comes to my talk page and asks me why I deleted the popular "Billy Joe Jim Bob's cow tipping wiki" which has zillions of users and lots of buzz on blogs and forums, I couldn't honestly tell him it was because it failed the special definition we have for "notable" if I just closed the AFD on the obscure Pakled Misplaced Pages as "IAR keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Nothing is exempt, but IAR. This is a "improve the encyclopedia" type of situation. Worst case you can mention the country's wikipedia in a section or statement about Wikipedias across the world, in a more notable article. Dzlife (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt, but the material should not be deleted; it belongs on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, linked from meta:Wikimedia projects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt—why, pray, would we want to retain material on non-notable topics? What value does it serve? Let's be clear about this: if there is any benefit to having articles about non-notable subjects, then it's time to review the notability policy. Basically, declaring the WMF exempt would lead to a whole lot of pretty justified WP:OSE arguments regarding other pages – not a situation we want to bring about. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 14:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt - but instead of Delete, I would !Vote to Merge. There is a difference between retaining information, and retaining an article. As with all topics, if a Wikimedia sister project is notable enough for a stand-alone article, there must exist reliable sources that are independent of Wikimedia that discuss it. If such sources do not exist, the sister project can not be considered notable enough for a stand-alone article. However, that does not negate appropriately listing or mentioning the sister project in a related article (such as the article on Wikimedia). It simply means that the sister project should not have its own article. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt. You can judge a great deal about the editorial integrity of a media organisation by how it reports about itself. Many organisations do badly in this regard, either with an out-and-out bias, or at least a skewed sense of the relative importance of a matter close to that organisation's heart. When a former BBC journalist dies, the corporation affords that much more coverage than it would the death of a public figure of similar age and profile. When reporting on the recent phone-hacking scandal, newspapers associated with those implicated give much less coverage, those of their competitors much more. This doesn't just reflect badly on these organisations' coverage of those topics - it exposes the apparent flexibility of their editorial standards in general, an impression that taints the whole of the organisation's output. Misplaced Pages is in general very good about this than other organisations; the Misplaced Pages article (and related articles) contains much more critical analysis of the work that contains them than I've seen in any other media group's description of itself. We can't help but have a COI (heck, unless we outsourced the article) but we can recognise it and do our best to minimise its effect. We have standards, pretty high ones, and we have to stick to them, and then raise them. This proposal does the opposite - it proposes we lower standards for things we like. Our only purpose must be to write the best, fairest, free-est encyclopaedia we can. We're not here to evangelise open-source or open-content or free media. Lots of other projects, Wikimedia or not, also "share the same goal of free knowledge", but we don't set them a lower standard. IAR is irrelevant - it reads "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it", not "If a rule prevents you from improving or or publicising Wikimedia or other free projects, ignore it." We benefit Misplaced Pages by raising standards, not lowering them. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt. The content of such putative articles, subject to the policies and guidelines for content can be included in several Misplaced Pages-related articles which already exist. The idea that because it is using the WMF software and A-Z format, as opposed to WordPress or other content management system, therefore it has special merit is bias. If there's consensus that WP:N is passed, and a consensus to spinoff the content into a stand-alone article, then that's our normal process. patsw (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Meta-Wiki is for people to document us internally. Misplaced Pages is not about Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Waray-Waray Misplaced Pages is a truly terrible close which could only have been due to the "105,000 articles" data point: take a look at this (warning: not on your phone's browser, nor on dialup) to see what we're talking about here. A hundred thousand geostubs imported from other wikis. If I didn't think it would cause me to lose the will to live I'd take it to DRV. Anyway, yes, this is plainly a very very bad idea as a proposal: we already have enough problems with editors ignoring / distorting WP:N without writing exemptions from it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt The proper place for this type of articles is the Meta website. Misplaced Pages is not a project to document wikimedia projects, and an article on a WMF project should comply the same content policies and guidelines as any other article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt Any sort of "inherent notability" style argument is a pet peeve of mine. The only way to argue notability is by providing sources that discuss the subject. This is doubly-so with WMF articles, as keeping nonnotable articles on this topic may be seen as a COI (or at least a bias) on our part. ThemFromSpace 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not exempt, but if such articles are deleted, the substance should be maintained in Misplaced Pages space, because we editors use the information. In general, moreover, the correct answer will usually be merge to Wikimedia, which is notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Exempt We must acknowledge our conflict of interest and act accordingly in order to preserve our neutrality. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Exempt To exempt these articles would be not be a professional approach to building an encyclopedia. Also violates WP:NPOV.Curb Chain (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Personally, I think calling anything "automatically notable, end of discussion" slings mud in the face of verifiability, implying that some "pseudo-information" out there that might establish notability, without making any effort towards actually trying to establish it. That does not make for substantive articles (i.e. something more than a pretty infobox, navbox, and "The XYZ Misplaced Pages is a Misplaced Pages written in the XYZ language."). That being said, I know that we presume various things (high schools come to mind) that are likely to be notable, mainly because nearly all of them do, at one point or another, get covered in some secondary source or another. –MuZemike 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that WP:N is the same as WP:V. They are not. Once notability is established (or deemed default), that does not imply verifiability is inconsequential. Per your example, articles on secondary schools and above still need to provide verifiable information despite being automatically notable.

Again, take a quick look at our articles on WMF projects. Even our article on English Misplaced Pages relies heavily on primary sources to describe internal procedures. While they satisfy WP:V, they do not establish WP:N.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that they are equivalent, but I am saying that notability is dependent on verifiability. However, notability goes one step further to require a certain degree is independent coverage. That is one of the basic tenets of the general notability guideline (GNG), is that we require something more than just primary sourcing to establish an article. While I think it's reasonable to expect that we be consistent across the board about this, we also try to balance this more with our specific notability guidelines (SNGs). What it seems like here is a rather large gap between the GNG and what we would consider to likely be notable as a WMF project. –MuZemike 01:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no one is disputing that. However, GNG is formulated specifically for WP:N, as are the SNG's. And I ask again, why was WP:N created in the first place? Articles on WMF projects can satisfy WP:V without necessarily establishing WP:N. WP:N is assuming non-notability as the default, necessary since the vast number of topics (particularly other websites, organizations, and the like) have other interests that might conflict with Misplaced Pages's.

However, WMF projects do not have a conflict of interest with the English Misplaced Pages. I liken it more to say, listing other volumes in a paper encyclopedia. They are part of us, as we are part of them.

The issue here is the class of articles this is being applied to. As sister projects of Misplaced Pages and by the very nature of Wikimedia projects themselves, should they be treated in the same way we treat external websites?

While I agree that "automatically notable, end of discussion" is questionable, so is requiring notability regardless of what the subject is.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages (and by extension, Wikimedia as a whole) is not a reliable source, so if articles on the various projects are being sourced via themselves, they should be removed from mainspace. Navel gazing of this type would be fine in the Misplaced Pages namespace, IMNSHO. Resolute 03:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. For factual information on other subjects. Not on information about ourselves. To the contrary of what most people seem to believe, primary sources are perfectly acceptable in uncontroversial information. Referring to our policy pages, previous discussions, diffs, histories, etc. is not quite the same as referring to using another Misplaced Pages article as a reference for another Misplaced Pages article.

For example: we can't use IMDB's pages on actors for reliable information on them, but we can use IMDB's 'about us' page as a reference for uncontroversial information on an article on IMDB.

And how many readers do you know look for info in the Misplaced Pages namespace? If we hide our projects, how are we going to tell people about it in the first place and invite contributors? Hope some of them are courageous enough to venture into the convoluted bureaucratic nightmare that is our Misplaced Pages namespace?

Deflecting the question does not help. If you think this is navel-gazing, then please, 'clean up' our pages on Wikimedia projects by removing all information sourced to WMF sites. You'll find you won't have anything left but a single paragraph or a couple of sentences, none of them particularly shedding light on the subject.- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think that articles in the main article space should abide by both WP:N and WP:V, regardless of the topic being WMF affiliated or not. There is no reason not to use the Misplaced Pages namespace for a comprehensive descriptive listing of other Wikipedias ... or all other WMF-affiliated projects, without regard to WP:N but with regard to WP:V. If providing information about the other wikipedias is the goal, then this will serve that purpose. "Forcing" WMF-topical articles into the main article space undermines the WP:N standard, unless there is a consensus agreement on the matter, articulated in something akin to WP:NSPORTS but rather WP:NWMF. Proposal of such a new Notability Policy should be done to cover this if people feel strongly that WMF-topical content should be encyclopedic by default. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

'Undermining the WP:N standard' begs the question of what is the WP:N standard? And why do we have it? And most importantly, what is it guarding against? Is it really hypocritical to exempt ourselves from it? Considering that we are user-driven, strictly non-promotional, if we can't even provide information about ourselves in our own sites, how else are we going to do it?

And no, hiding it in the Misplaced Pages namespace defeats the entire purpose. It would only be really available then for us. And how is that meeting our goals as a project? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: I disagree with the assessment that Misplaced Pages is good in the way it reports itself. While the article on Misplaced Pages itself is quite impartial, the reality of the rest is very different, hence this proposal.

Articles on Wikimedia projects do rely heavily on primary sources and as such do not actually prove notability. Some actually seem to rely on the impression of notability. For example, some language wikis on major European languages (random example: Danish Misplaced Pages) do not have sources that prove notability or do not have sources at all, yet they are not AfD'd as often as the more obscure (to westerners) Asian and African language Wikipedias. As mentioned before, our article on Wikimedia Commons, in its current state, also does not prove notability and seems to be an exception instead of WP:N (as it is credited in a huge amount of reliable sources as a source for their pictures, but is not actually discussed in depth). So if everyone is assuming I was only talking about small language Wikipedias, I assure you, I'm not. I wouldn't have brought this discussion up in the first place.

While I obviously want them to be excluded in light of the aims of the entire project and not just en.wp, I have to also sadly agree with most of the rationales. I agree with Fut.Perf. ☼'s argument that in most cases, there really is nothing to write about them. I would also happily support a merged article for all other-language Wikipedias that are deemed not notable for their own articles, drawing notability from Misplaced Pages itself instead. In that way, we still are making them visible to regular readers.

However, I also think hiding our sister projects in Misplaced Pages space or worse, making it the sole responsibility of metawiki, is both draconian and shortsighted, given that these projects are a part of Misplaced Pages. But, whatever. As long as there is a community decision on this, I'll be satisfied.

And in case anyone thinks otherwise, a disclaimer : I am not involved in any other Wikimedia projects other than en.wp and commons and have no personal stake in the matter.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a very big fan of this "SNG as a way of measuring probable GNG coverage" in the general case, but only where there adequate reason to believe that's the case. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Waray-Waray Misplaced Pages is a very active counterargument to that, because people have been arguing that it's "probably notable" due to having a hundred thousand articles when they are seemingly all zero-content stubs (76 active users, less than have posted in my Facebook updates list this week, and only two admins says a great deal here). The case still needs to be made that any Misplaced Pages offshoot is probably notable, let alone anything else WMF is involved in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

<sighs> I see giving that as an example was a mistake. Note that in the same discussion, I freely admitted it was not notable. The question is are you willing to assume the same thing for all the other Wikipedias who fail WP:WEB? And if you do (which would mean mass deletions of a lot of pages listed in the template given below by Fut. Perf.), what do you think its effects would be for Misplaced Pages as a whole (not en.wp but the Misplaced Pages itself)?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The effect would be negligible. We can redirect to a single page which names them and gives rough activity counts: if at some point reliable secondary sources do actually write about then they can be re-split to standalone articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That, on the other hand, I can agree with. Anyone else disagree? Because then we can probably close this per WP:SNOW, and start removing any WMF Project-related pages which does not show notability in its sources to a single page listing them all. I hope an admin will be willing to help with that. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just redirect them to List of wikipedias. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian, the requirement is not that an article "show notability in its sources". The requirement is only that, somewhere out in the real world, sufficient material has been published by proper reliable sources even if no editor has ever typed a single bibliographic citation into the article.

But, yes, I'd merge and redirect all of the substubs. There's no reason why the List of Wikipedias couldn't include all of the information currently in those tiny articles. We can WP:PRESERVE all of the information without scattering it across dozens of pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... that's how I interpret notability. My impression is that's not a common stance, LOL. Anyway, so we're all in agreement that they should be in List of Wikipedias? Now how about large articles for which no sources proving notability are mentioned or found? A real problem here is that they might be in foreign languages.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If sources exist they will eventually be found and used to write an article. We don't need to have standalone articles on anything presumed to be notable in advance of finding reliable sources to actually add content to them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The comment by WhatamIdoing to Obsidian above reflects the defective wording of wp:N, a point we have discussed before. Although it allows such cases, I contend that it should not. There is nothing constructive about encouraging editors to create completely uncited articles. We'd be better to just have a minimal citation with no content, e.g. a stub which reads:

Title see ISBN 1234567890.

At least that way there would be something to work from. I contend that the present text at wp:FAILN should be strengthened. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Precedents

Just for ease of reference:

• A large group AfD for many individual Wikipedias was closed as "keep" in 2007 (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Misplaced Pages language editions)
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Misplaced Pages/Archive 1#Removal of Articles about smaller Wikipedias led to the smerging of most smaller Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 (e.g. )
• As a result, the navigation template {{Wikipedias}} currently lacks bluelinks for most of the entries below 50,000 articles. In reality, many of the entries in question did have articles previously.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikibombing revisited

A couple of months ago an editor created an essay, Misplaced Pages:Wikibombing, to discuss the alleged use of search engine optimization techniques on Misplaced Pages to influence search engine rankings. I have carried out an experiment to see whether this is actually possible in practice and have posted the results at User:Prioryman/Use of SEO techniques on Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate any feedback from editors. Prioryman (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Whorlton Castle ranks 6th when I search Google. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (writing systems) has been marked as a guideline

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (writing systems) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLPSIGN

Recently, there was a deletion review regarding a massive deletion of uploaded image files, all of which are images of signatures of living people that fits our BLP policies.

That deletion review was upheld pending a RFC/VPP at my suggestion, therefore, I propose this question to the community: What should we do regarding signatures of living people? What should we do about WP:BLPSIGN? - Penwhale | 12:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean "what to do about it"? Its a proposed guideline/policy that seems to have never gotten off the ground. Misplaced Pages is filled with unenacted proposals. Since that page has never had the force of policy or guideline, I'm not sure we need to do anything. Perhaps one could start an RFC or centralized discussion over enacting it or closing it for good, but that page never became official and hasn't had a substantive change or discussion in a month. --Jayron32 12:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• The deletion review linked partially based arguments around this, and therefore this should get a closer look by the community. - Penwhale | 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• In its present form BLPSIGN is far too wishy-washy anyway. The only firm guideline it gives is not to "reproduce from primary sources", but primary sources are not made equal: an author's printed signature on the sleeve of his latest bestseller is quite different from his written signature on the same given at a book signing. Someone basically needs to rewrite BLPSIGN to be be useful first and then it can be discussed: we can't really write it by committee in an RfC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like the creators of BLPSIGN don't know what a primary source is. I suspect that they meant something like "do not reproduce signatures from court documents, legal contracts, and stuff like that". It is not actually possible for a person's signature to become a secondary source for the person's signature. Deciding whether something is a secondary source is not merely a matter of counting up links in a chain. An original signature, a photocopy of that signature, and a gold-embossed copy of that signature on the book cover are all primary sources for the appearance of the signature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Signatures do not, in general seem like they belong in an encyclopedia. So what if some people collect them? I see the point of reproducing John Hancock's signature, because it is a notable one, much written about. But for living people it seems to invite forgery. Edison (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at the DRV, it looks like all of the sigs that were deleted were non-American, possibly from India (judging from the names)? I also see that quite a few articles (all American subjects from what I've seen) still have signatures in their infoboxes and are notable figures of the first order (such as Barack Obama or Beyonce). Just trying to figure out where things are at.

    There shouldn't be any concern or controversy regarding the signatures of living public officials (like Obama or Schwarzenegger): their signature on public documents is widely available and has/had the force of law. I can't fathom a reasonable argument for not having those (unless it's outside the U.S. and of unclear copyrightability), regardless of whether it's taken from a "primary source" like a signed act or executive order. Similarly, the signatures of artists are (often) displayed on their works or otherwise widely publicized as their identifying mark, basically like a brand logo, so there is no privacy concern there (this might apply to other kinds of celebrities or entertainers too, if they've used their signature in advertisements, album covers, etc). Beyond that, it should be a case-by-case determination as to whether it's actually relevant or informative to an article and/or an invasion of privacy. If your only source for a minor actor's signature is a divorce court filing, then we probably shouldn't include it. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• A CFD has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures_of_living_persons#RfC_on_BLPSIGN_as_official_policy. I suggest that any discussion on the matter be directed to that location. --After Midnight 14:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested change to WP:ADMINACCT wording

(N.B. Crosspost with Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Suggested_change_to_WP:ADMINACCT_wording - I'm not sure which is the more appropriate venue)

Currently, WP:ADMINACCT contains the following sentence:

"Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions"

I think a reasonable reading of this sentence - with particular attention to the usage of the words "only" and "free" - would interpret the sentence as meaning that as long as an editor abides by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, any criticism or questioning of admin actions that editor makes are protected by this policy. However, the consensus and ruling at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch seems to be that such questions/criticisms must be with a view to dispute resolution. In particular, WP:ADMINACCT does not protect an editor from WP:UP#POLEMIC in their user space. In terms of accountability, editors are not allowed to keep a permanent "account" (list) of admin actions in their userspace. Therefore I think this sentence should be changed to reflect this consensus. I suggest the following rewording (I have including the surrounding text for context, the bolded part is new):

"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Subject to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are allowed to question or criticize administrator actions on appropriate pages as part of the dispute resolution process. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

--Surturz (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that version is too limiting. It sounds like you're claiming admins can't be questioned outside of the dispute resolution process. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! I think it is clear from the MfD above that any complaints/criticisms must be "constructive" ie. aimed at resolving the issue. If I find an admin action objectionable, am I allowed to do any of the following?

1. Complain on a friend's talk page
2. Canvass other editors by posting the complaint on their talkpages
3. Make a permanent userspace page containing the complaint

I would say that consensus seems to be "no". --Surturz (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me take a stab at this. Perhaps we need to say something like:

• "Subject to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are allowed to question or criticize administrator actions either by directly confronting the administrator, or by raising the issue via the normal channels of the dispute resolution process or the administrator noticeboards."

Whether or not we need to include language which deals with disallowed stuff should also be considered, but that seems to cover the usual healthy ways that disputes are handled: If you disagree with what an administrator has done, first you talk to them directly, and if that is unsatisfactory, you use dispute resolution or the admin boards to seek outside opinion. Other behaviors you note (gathering up friends who have also been similarly "wronged", or keeping a list in your userspace of such "wrongs") aren't healthy ways of solving disputes. --Jayron32 03:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit wordy, I think we should try to keep it short by expressing the principle, rather than attempting to mandate the process.

To me the central issue is whether WP:ADMINACCT either 1. Gives editors additional protections/freedoms when complaining about administrator actions, or 2. Simply establishes that admins and non-admins have equal rights when discussing admin actions. The current wording asserts the former, but I think the consensus is the latter. When non-admins complain about admin actions, they are bound by the same rules that govern other sorts of dispute. They have no additional protections. --Surturz (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to infer that any proposal to limit criticism of administrators, beyond the guidelines that already exist, is sinister. With rights come responsibilities, and with privilege comes some degree of scrutiny. Placing anyone above scrutiny for their actions appears elitist and dangerous to me.

I'm fond of metaphors and analogy. I liken this issue to the one about flag-burning: it might be bad form to burn a national flag in a particular protest, but is a specific law required to prevent this, or do existing laws (safety hazards, causing an affray, public nuisance, etc) not already offer avenues to address egregious activities? In that vein, cannot hate postings be addressed individually if and as they arise, and under existing rules?

Every time any kind of restraint is placed on liberty for the sake of preventing some anticipated wrong-doing, other, completely unforeseen consequences inevitably arise to restrain liberty in unintended ways. As with the flag-burning issue, has there really been such a spate of egregiousness that new rules are necessary? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am sort of with Peterstrempel on this one for the following reason: Administrators don't actually have any real "power" in the abstract sense that people pretend that they do. That pretense that they do only comes from people who spend time being upset about this illusory "power". Administrators are subject to the exact same rules as anyone else is; the concept that they shouldn't be does not exist except in the minds of people for whom it is to their advantage to pretend that it does. Insofar as no editor at Misplaced Pages should be subject to the sort of unhelpful, non-resolution-minded grudge-holding accumulation of lists of wrongs, or shouldn't be ganged up on by people who perceive them as opponents, or anything like that, administrators have those same rights. Administrators are not special, and don't need to be set aside as a special class that some how needs either more protection, or more scrutiny. --Jayron32 16:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron32 on all counts. --GRuban (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotes *and* italicisation

There's a growing disease among some writers the symptoms of which are quoting and italicisation of passages. What is the point? Italics are, anyway, more difficult to read on a screen, and should be preserved for titles, names of vessels, emphasis of words and phrases – oh, the usual. I see this bizarre habit in blogs and other online content, when the quote marks should tell us it's a quote. Like, duh, to borrow from the vernacular. So I wonder if there are people out there who have more influence in deciding Misplaced Pages style who might look out for these weird typographical combinations and advise people that they're rather silly and shouldn't be used.

There is another point about quoting, too. If the style of the publication is for, say, doubles, no singles should be used except for nested quotations (i.e. quotes within quotes). Some writers think a single word or a phrase can make do with single quotes, and then use doubles for full sentences. Ain't so, and it's illogical and unnecessary, when spotting a quote of the style that is opposite to that of the publication (single in doubles or double in singles) can tell a reader immediately that he/she is reading a nested quote.

Again, I appeal to Wiki staff and editors and others of influence to try to steer contributors away from these nonsenses. I appreciate that, with so many contributors, some are going to choose a style that may not be that of the organization as a whole. But, even then, if they choose, say, single quotes (maybe they're made used to them by living in and reading books published in the UK, for instance) as the primary quote mark, they should stick to it (using doubles only for nested quotes). But I gather the style is for the American-preferred doubles (I, although British, prefer them too).

Andy (--Ajarmitage (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Both of the problems you bring up are indeed against the MoS (WP:MOSQUOTE#Italics_and_quotations & WP:MOSQUOTE#Quotation_marks). But we are a volunteer project; there is no way to force compliance with the MoS. At best, there's ad hoc vigilante style correction and voluntary review (the Featured Article process). Education is good too though. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC) ('Single-quotation' annoys the heck out of me too.)

With the way you've stated the single quotes for single words rule it is illogical, but I'm not convinced you're stating it correctly. If the word is a quote then double quotes should be used, for example:

He said in a piercing whisper, "Carrots!"

But when talking about a word I think single quotes are usable to indicate that it's not a part of the text and it's not a quote, as in:

The word 'carrots' is usually spelled with two r's.

To me this looks better but I doubt it's something to argue about here. Does the issue really come up in articles often enough to warrant covering it the MOS? I also occasionally use single quotes in talk pages to enclose article names when a link has already been given, but I figure anything goes on talk pages as long as I get the message across.--RDBury (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/Naming conventions has been marked as a guideline

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/Naming conventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/Naming Conventions no longer marked as a guideline

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/Naming Conventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Decapitalizing the second word it looks like. --Izno (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WKQX, which redirects, keeps getting deleted

I noticed WKQX was a red link in an article I was looking at, and discovered that someone had deleted it as a non-controversial administrative action. I recreated it only to find it deleted again, recreated it and then I found out I couldn't look up who deleted it to go to their talk page.

This is not a non-controversial delete; WKQX changed its call letters, resulting in a move that left behind a redirect, and all the information about WKQX remains in WWWN. The action left red links all over creation, although they needed to be updated anyway. I took care of that where I could find the links to update. Even when piped, radio station call letters might be used again and the link would go to the new station.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given that the WKQX calls now exist on a (currently silent, but yet still a licensed entity) FM frequency (95.9) in Watseka, Illinois, the WKQX call letters should point to that station's article. The fact that there has not been one written, to this point, isn't really a valid point to have WKQX redirect to the new calls. A hatnote at the top of the article about the current WKQX, when / if written, would be acceptable, but the deletion of the redirect is not - to use your recent edit summary - "the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen on this site". Strikerforce 01:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Strikerforce, you aren't creating a disambiguation page or helping to make something along the lines of what you suggest above, you're asking for SPEEDY DELETION. I call foul on your argument above, since you say there is a solution to this, but you're pushing for something else on the page itself, and also since you seem to put the importance of a silent station (which I doubt would meet GNG) above a transmitting station. Take your deletion request to a proper AfD discussion rather than making arguments that seem to want to have it both ways. -- Avanu (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You may "call foul" all you like, but precedent - and probably policy, but I'm not inclined at the moment to go find it - supports deletion of the page because WKQX is a licensed radio station (even if silent, it is still licensed by the FCC) that is not the former OTA Q101 in Chicago. My statement above is that if someone were to create an article for the current WKQX, then it would be acceptable to have a hat note on that article stating, "For the former WKQX in Chicago, Illinois, see WWWN". Also, a licensed radio station is generally notable, regardless of current transmitting status. Honestly, I'd say that one would only need to look no further than the administrator who has agreed with each of my CSD nominations of that page and judge whether or not they know what they're doing, in their role as an administrator. I don't know about you, but I trust Fastily's judgement explicitly, on this and any other administrative action. Strikerforce 02:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Strikerforce, write the article first. Until then, deleting the redirect accomplishes nothing except breaking links. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You linked me to an essay, not a policy. Find something that supports your restoration that is actually a policy, please. Strikerforce 02:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Redirect, reason 1, seems good to me. See also Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 20#WKQX. --Izno (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (media) regarding radio stations says "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming". They have no audience and no programming, unless you can find evidence of their broadcast history, which by my research so far ends with them being called WMLF. I found some evidence that WMLF broadcast in the 80's via Googling it, but WKQX at Watseka has zero broadcast history. -- Avanu (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have updated all links in article space (some were really hard to find) to WKQX. I restored one to the Watseka station that I had deleted because I could find no evidence it existed on Misplaced Pages. Would it be all right, until that station gets its own article, to mention in the WWWN article what happened to the call letters, with reliable sources backing up the facts?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment