Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions

Although it could be insignificant at first sight, the distinction between Category:Actors and Category:Actresses (the latter being a soft redirect currently) could be very useful and handy in Wikipedia, particularly in terms of navigation and accessibility (browsing the entire Category:Actors could be particularly inconvenient, when one needs a narrow subject for research purposes, for example Category:Norwegian actresses). The WP:Cat gender statement "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed" does not give any reason for that. It's a case where the gender-neutral language seems to be unneccessary, if not troublesome in terms of WP:PRECISION. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language suggests gender-neutral language only "where this can be done with clarity and precision", which is not the case. Linguistically, this is especially so when the person bears a unisex name, like Robin Tunney when it's unclear whether it's he or she. The articles about actresses consistently refer to each as "actress", not "actor" and we already have long-standing categories of women by occupation, that have male counterparts: Category:Priestesses, Category:Abbesses, Category:Nuns. Considering all that, I propose this motion to drop the restriction on actresses in WP:CATGRS so that we could restore Category:Actresses and foster all relevant subcats, like Category:Actresses by country. Brandmeister^talk 01:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a gender issue. Traditionally people who are actors who are women have been called actresses, but they have pointed out that no, they are just as much an actor as any male actor. Apteva (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the word "actress" is not an anachronism in English and is obviously neutral as it's neither an offensive word nor a word to avoid. As far as I know it's simply grammatically incorrect to call for instance Jessica Biel an "actor" instead of "actress". Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not grammatically incorrect (at least not in standard UK English); the distinction was common in the past, but has now become a lot less clear-cut.

Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term. [OED 3rd ed., 2010; note to "actress, n", sense 2a] Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not prefer some unclear trends over encyclopedic purposes and having double standards (like Category:Priestesses but not Category:Actresses) is odd. There is still Academy Award for Best Actress, as well as a dedicated Category:Film awards for lead actress (not actor). Many dictionaries themselves still have the entry "actress". Brandmeister^talk

• Since this is on WP:CENT, I've tagged it as an RFC. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't categorize female actors separately from male ones, just as we don't categorize female singers separately from male ones. The fact that a different word happens to exist doesn't mean we have to use it in our categorization system. I would only categorize by sex in professions where being of one sex rather than the other is somehow exceptional for that profession. Victor Yus (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Victor, and add that Cat:Priestess is a good example of this, because no matter what the religion, the priesthood is almost always dominated by, if not exclusively restricted to, one gender. Diana was served by women, and Jupiter by men. Exceptions to this approach have historically been rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Screen Actors Guild, the very union which represents Hollywood actors, gives out the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role. If they want to call themselves female actors, why should we object? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do categorize singers like that. Category:Female singers by nationality, Category:Male singers by nationality. --Brian the Editor (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I just had to add at this point that we have seperate categories such as Category:American female singers. I even at one point made a nomination to get rid of such categories (but retain categories such as Category:American sopranos and Category:American tenors that while geneder specific, are also by voice type) the move was defeated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We have enough problems fighting over what sexuality or religion someone is for categorization purposes. I don't think the benefits will outweigh the inevitable conflicts that will arise when it comes time to decide on an article about an actor of ambiguous gender. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We have gendered categories for politicians, writers, singers, golfers, comedians, and many other occupations. In the rare cases of people of ambiguous gender, I have seen no evidence that categorising them in the existing gendered categories has caused any particular problem. So why should it be a particular problem with actors? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To all but the older editors like myself, "actress" is a quaint anachronism like "aviatrix", still maintained by certain fogies like the folks who broadcast the awards shows! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Terms like poetess, authoress and comedienne were used when I was young and they have all fallen by the wayside and things did not fall apart when this happened. As others have mentioned above those in the profession have moved to gender neutral language. As to dictionaries these, especially the Merriam-Webster definition here [1] whose 1st example of usage in a sentence is "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [2], here [3] and here [4] all of which use gender neutral definitions. This writing style guide [5] gives us another reliable source for us of the word actor for both genders. Documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and programs on The Biography Channel and TruTV identify men and women as actors. Although many acting awards retain the term actress the associations that present them have moved away from it as can be seen in the In Memorium segment of this last February's Academy Awards [6]. Our MoS has long had this section Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language and it applies to this discussion as it always has. MarnetteD | Talk 22:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification - Gender-neutral language is an Essay, and not a part of the MOS. Apteva (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is an editing guideline and it specifically says "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Apteva (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline sets out a series of general principles for deciding when gendered categories should be created. The first principle is "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic". In the case of gender, it says "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic".
The specific guidance against categorising actors by gender contradicts those general principles, and should be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those terms have, indeed, fallen by the wayside and I'm not averse to combining both categories into one. Still, a distinguishment between the two is still noted (the Academy Awards are a prime example), and a separate actresses category wouldn't be bad. Perhaps there could be "actor" and "actress" subcategories of one larger one, though I'm not sure what you'd name that larger cat. dci | TALK 02:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not look at the link I provided that showed that the Academy Awards listed men and women as Actors, including Jane Russell and Elizabeth Taylor, in the years In Memorium section? They may not have changed the name of the acting award - yet - but they have certainly acknowledged the gender neutral use of the term "Actor". MarnetteD | Talk 15:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marnette continues to confuse or conflate two separate issues: a) the terminology used to describe women in the acting profession; b) the question of whether acting is a gendered profession.

The Academy Awards may or may not choose at some point to follow the example other awards and label their gendered awards as "male actors" and "female actors", but I see no evidence that any of the major acting awards have considered abandoning the gendered split in their awards ceremonies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that there are two different issues raised here. The more important issue is whether we should categorize actors by gender. Victor Yus, WhatamIdoing, and Apteva address this issue above, and while they give cogent arguments against gender categorization, I think that gender categorization would be useful and appropriate for the reasons noted by Brandmeister, Brian the Editor, and DCI2026. The less important question is whether we should revive usage of the word "actress": since "female actor" accomplishes the same goal without the perceived baggage of the traditional term, we should just go with "female actor" and "male actor" as subcats of "actor". Any "actors of ambiguous gender" can be handled by recourse to the sources (see, e.g. Jaye Davidson, Divine (performer), RuPaul, etc.) or in the unsolvable case left in the parent category.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Female actors" sounds fine to me, if there's going to be categories by gender (I'm not that big a believer in categories in the first place, so I'm also good with not having any distinction). I've heard elsewhere that the term "actress" is older usage in mainstream film and theater, and "actor" (for either gender) is preferred. "Actress" these days may be associated mostly with porn, not that I would know. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• We really need to avoid genderization of categories except where absolutely necessary, for the same reason we don't have Category:Gay black liberal actors with a disability. This obsession with labeling people by something that can be discriminated against isn't particularly helpful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite. When there is a reason for someone to need to find actors that happen to be female, there should be linked data tool-oriented methods to do so (e.g. DBpedia) - using categories for this kind of extremely basic metadata is not only crude in terms of sophistication but has the many unwanted side-effects of the kind discussed above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not DBpedia, and we don't have those tools, because Wikipedia:Category intersection has never been implemented. So we still have static intersections categories, include many other categories for the intersection of gender and occupation ... and we have a set of long-term stable criteria for deciding when we create categories for such intersections. It is not, and never has been policy or guideline to follow SMcCandlish's desire to "avoid genderization of categories except where absolutely necessary". The guidance is that "a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and the case of acting it is a central aspect of the topic. This is illustrated by long-standing existence of dozens of categories of industry awards restricted only to women, some of which I have grouped together under Category:Actresses by award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Like it or not actor/actress are not unisex roles, an actress plays women, an actor plays men. The cat is as specific/inflexible as category:Spanish male tennis players. As for English, try "the actress Marilyn Monroe" in Google Books, then try "the actor Marilyn Monroe". The current category labelling is not massively helpful, particularly with non-West-European names where looking at category:Thai actors won't be remotely clear to most readers, though List of Thai actors + List of Thai actresses fills the task. (Though I don't think this actor Marilyn Monroe issue is as silly as category:German conductors (music), to distinguish from German conductors (electrical), while we're mentioning unhelpful cat names..) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are at multiple productions which focus on males playing female roles and females playing male roles, for example Tootsie and Victor Victoria/Victor/Victoria (musical). In Shakespearean times there were no female actors and males played the female roles. It is certainly plausible that someone somewhere has put on a wig and played Marilyn Monroe, and that someone has cut their hair and played Cary Grant. Why does anyone care what someone's gender is? We have categories of golfers and female golfers and male and female tennis players, because there is a specific golf tour that prohibits males from participation and tennis tournaments prohibit females from playing in the mens tournament and males from playing in the females tournament (though Billie Jean King trounced an aging Bobbie Riggs). Wimbledon now pays identical purses for male and female winners. Anyone can play in the PGA, it just so happens that only one or two females have tried, and none have "made the cut" (Ms 59, Annika Sorenstam, came close). Apteva (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose reinstating the actress categories. I don't care much one way or another about whether the word actress is maintained in the relevant articles, but I see no real argument for why the two genders have to be sorted into two different categories. (If you want to maintain the word "actress", why not Category:Actors and actresses?) Victor Yus sums up my views. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion at CfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have asked for that nomination to be withdrawn until this RFC has closed, per WP:MULTI's principle of keeping discussions centralised. Sadly, Lugnuts has declined my request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, I think the a lot of people are missing the real issue. I would say that actress is still used, but would be willing to go with "female actor". We have the article Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress among others which shows people still use the term and I was able to find lots of hits, including some from British newspapers in the last two-years with the google search "Actress picked for Lois Lane". However, it is also clear that actor will be used in gender neutral ways as well, so I am fine with either term. In general the roles people are given (although there are exceptions) corespond with their gender. I think it would work to divide out the actors by nationality categories into male and female sub-sections. There is such a high overlap between singers and actors, I really do not see how we justify dividing singers by gender and not dividing actors by gender, so I think we should divide actors by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Should either be merged into Category:Actors or moved to Category:Female actors. Personally I don't see the point of us categorizing every possible human topic by gender, but oh well. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just incase anyone still had a doubt, actress redirects to, yes you've guessed it - actor. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split We split categories in fields where it is noteworthy to split. In the case of other celebrity fields like modeling or sports, it is so routine to segregate or talk about men separately from women that it would be absurd to not categorize them apart. Since female and male actors are so commonly spoken of separately (e.g. in awards ceremonies), it makes sense to follow that convention while categorizing them. And, as pointed out in the original proposal, this would be a convenient and reasonable scheme for navigation. I can easily imagine the value of sorting through female vocalists just like I could see the value in sorting through females who are actors/actresses. For my money, "actress" is in no way an anachronism and I find "actor" when applied to women jarring. This is purely anecdotal and I don't have any data on how common "actor" as a generic term is versus "actors" for males and "actresses" for females. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split since we do this for singers, we should do it for actors as well. Actors roles are more determined by gender than those of singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't think a split by gender is justified in this case. Splitting singers is justified because there are distinct differences between male and female voices, and songs are often written for either a male or female singer. But there's no inherent distinction between male and female actors; yes, some awards differentiate by gender, but others don't. The distinguishing features for actors are what they perform in (stage, film, television, etc) and their nationality, but not their gender. Robofish (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I always favor precision in language (as explained by Brandmeister). Dropping actress would be an instance of gender neutrality causing obfuscation, rather than clarity. Another editor comments that "aviatrix" is a quaint anachronism. Well, "aviator" is not frequently used any longer, either, but, in cases where it were used, aviatrix would also be appropriate. To retain actor and actress serves a useful linguistic purpose. Dropping the word actress would be an inappropriate application of gender neutrality. It would apply gender neutrality simply for the sake of gender neutrality, and not because it provides any benefit. Hackercraft (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This would be a retrograde change and harms more than it helps. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Please explain why you think it would be a retrograde step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Split. Acting is a rigidly gendered profession, in which men and women work in the same settings but have roles defined by their gender. Unless a casting director is trying to make a counterfactual point, women don't get to play Hamlet and men don't get to play Ophelia. This gendered split is acknowledged at all the major awards in the profession, which have separate awards for men and women.
  The relevant guidance at WP:CATGRS stresses the principle that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and that is clearly the case here. We have gendered categories for singers Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers) for similar reasons, and in both cases there are specific exemptions in the UK's Sex Discrimination laws to permit differentiation by gender. (I presume that the same applies in other jurisdictions such as the USA, or women would be suing Hollywood for not being cast in the lucrative and more plentiful male roles).
  Note that the guidance also says that "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed", but offers no reason for this breach of the general principle. The general principle that we make a decision on whether "gender has a specific relation to the topic" works fine in every other area of human endeavour, and we should apply it here too.
  The overwhelming majority of contemporary dramatic performances (whether for stage or screen) are cast according so that characters are portrayed by actors of the same gender. By far the largest exception to that is in some art forms or cultures where there is a convention that some or all of the parts are played by actors of the opposite gender (as in pantomime, with its tradition of cross-dressing, or when women were excluded from medieval theatre). In those cases, the gender of the actor is still a defining factor in casting: women don't get cast as pantomime dames, because that is a male role.
  There are some rare and notable exceptions to this, but they are notable precisely because of their rarity. The overwhelming convention of theatre is rigidly gendered, either by actors playing characters of their own gender, or by them playing opposite-gender chraacters who are customarily portrayed in that way.
  Look at the careers of some leading contemporary actresses. Of the top of my head, I took Judy Dench, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts ... and in those 5 articles have found not one single example of these women playing a male part. These care not porn stars; these are women who act with their clothes except for a few sex scenes, so what's between their legs is irrelevant. The clear fact is that being female overwhelmingly restricts them to female roles.
  Note that the question of terminology should be separated from the decision on whether to categorise by gender. Concerns expressed by some editors that the word" "actress" is outdated do need to be considered; it seems that "actress" is falling out favour, but is still widely used. However, there are several other ways to title gendered categories for actors, so a rejection of the term "actress" does not prevent us from having gendered categories under a different title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some women who act prefer to be called actors, some directors would not think of casting a woman as Hamlet or a man as Juliet, yet in an all girls school only women play both roles and in an all boys school only men play both roles. Historically, originally only men were allowed to be actors, and the word actor came to mean a male actor, just as postman, fireman, chief came to mean a man, even though other than chief women have broken through to many male dominated occupations, and we create categories of women by occupation to chronicle not just nuns and concubines, but every occupation that has had a recent influx of women. An actress category would have been appropriate in the 17th century, but not in the 21st century. If a second category is to be created, it should be "male actors", not actresses, and leave actresses in the actor category, or if that seems too bizarre, two categories, male actors and female actors, but I categorically oppose relegating women to being second class citizens. It is women who are important in the world, not men. Apteva (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you /seriously/ saying you think having it be split into "male actors" and "actors"? Because that's how I read what you said. Are you insane, or just trolling? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I am saying that it would be better to split actors into male and female than to create actresses. If that sounds absurd, then that makes creating actresses as a category even more absurd. Apteva (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So is this saying you support spliting but to category:Male actors and Category:Female actors per the precedent of Category:Male singers and Category:Female singers? This whole discussion has been muddied by people obsessing about terminology when the most basic issue is whether to split at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I oppose splitting and think that if anyone inadvertently or on purpose creates a subcategory of actress, such as List of actresses of Kuwait, that it be made a category of actor, not a category of actresses. Apteva (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Apteva, what do you mean? Why should a subcategory of actress not be a sub-category of Category:Actresses? An actress is "a female actor" (source=Shorter Oxford English Dictionary), so if we have categories of female actors, why treat them any differently to the other occupations under Category:Women by occupation?

  It appears to me that like many other participants in this discussion, you are confusing the decision of whether to have gendered categories for actors with the question of what titles to use.

  1. If we create gendered categories for women actors, then we can decide whether to call them "actresses", "female actors", or "women in acting" (like Category:Women in politics), or something else ... but the titling decision is secondary to the decision on whether to have categories.
  2. If we have categories for women actors/actresses/female actors, then they all belong under Category:Actresses (or whatever we call it), as well as relevant actor categories. See for example how Category:Indian women in politics is a subcat of Category:Women in politics,Category:Indian politicians and Category:Indian women by occupation. See also Category:Women writers and its subcats.
  3. Separately from deciding whether to create categories for "female actors"/"actresses", we can also decide whether to create Category:Male actors etc. But whether we have gendered categories for male and/or female actors, Category:Actors remains a common category for actors of whatever gender, just as we do with all other occupation categories.

  Your comment above at 00:02 13 November suggests most of your concerns relate to the word "actress". I have no particular view either way on that term, but I respect that it arises strong feelings in some editors, so I would not oppose using something "female actor". So, if we used "Female actor", would you object to the existence of Category:Female actors and subcats? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have yet to see anyone offer any explanation of why we should not seperate actors by gender when we seperate singers by gender. Until someone presents some sort of argument for this I will find it very hard to believe we should have one system for actors and a different one for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to splitting men and women. That's discriminating, that is, pointing differences where there aren't. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia's job is to report the world as it is reported in reliable sources. As editors, our job is neither to oppose discrimination nor to support, but to report the facts and interpretations in reliable sources.
  If men and women shared roles in the theatre, there would be no point in categorising them separately, but the careers of actors are entirely gendered. Look at the roles played by the 5 women I listed above: Judy Dench, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts. I can't find a single male role played by any one of them. Why does NaBUru38 describe this as "pointing differences where there aren't"???
  What on earth is going on here? Why do editors such as NaBUru38 appear determined to deny that acting is a gendered profession? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ISN'T ABOUT GENDER!!! It is about the position, the job, the performer. Gee.....is there a female version of performer? No.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another editor who conflates the question of whether to categorise actors by gender with the subsidiary issue of what name we use for any such category.

There is no female version of "politician", "golfer", or "writer". But we have Category:Women in politics, Category:Female golfers and Category:Women writers because gender has a specific relation to that topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose using "actress" to refer to female actors. Using this kind of diminutive suffix contributes to the sexist and non-neutral impression that female actors shouldn't be taken as seriously as the male ones, and the acting industry itself has moved away from this sort of language in the names of its awards. I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not to break the acting categories into subcategories by gender, but if they are split in this way it should be done in an equal manner ("male actors" and "female actors", not "actors" and "female actors"). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The arguments about actress being "sexist" ignore actual usage. Here https://www.google.com/#q=Actress&hl=en&tbo=u&source=univ&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=giatUMLWGqqV0QGP2ICQCg&ved=0CHMQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=db0dad5452b41f3b&bpcl=38897761&biw=1024&bih=623 is a link to a google news search I just did, that shows that news headlines still will refer to a person as an "actress". It is clearly the term people actually usage, and no griping that it is somehow "sexist" changes the fact that it is the term people overwhelmingly use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split this is a very common way to categorise people, so there is no reason to not do it for actors also. The roles are very clearly split by gender. I am not oppose to the use of the term actress, but female actors would be satisfactory alongside the male actors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into separate categories. There is a very significant difference between genders in acting. (No opinion on the naming.) — Wolfgang42 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split. Sheesh. The fact that you can come up with specific examples of situations where women play male roles and vice versa doesn't mean that acting isn't predominantly gendered. Those are unusual cases; most people in the acting profession play roles specifically meant for their gender. And has been pointed out, awards are even given based on gender. I feel that this discussion has been dominated by people trying to argue something that is manifestly not true in the hopes of driving everyone else to exhaustion trying to prove something that would be common sense outside of Wikipedia. I really hope we don't end up with someone counting the !votes and saying that since X percent think acting is gendered and Y percent think it's not, Wikipedia can't take a position on that so we must do nothing.

And I also agree with using the word "actress". Wikipedia is not for remaking society (which is not a WP:ISNOT but perhaps should be). The term is used and the fact that you would rather it wasn't isn't a reason to treat it like it's not. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in the actual business of entertainment it is actor period. This is an attempt to simply place Wikipedia in a position of deciding such when it should be going by the most common use and that is indeed actor not actress.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a little research before commenting. In the actual business of film-acting, the highest award a woman can get is the Academy Award for Best Actress. Most other awards also separate actors by gender, such as the Screen Actors Guild, which issues separate awards to "male actors" and "female actors". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put into the guideline that "actresses" was not needed six years ago.[7] Why would it be more useful today than it was in 2006? Anyone who gets out onto a stage is an actor. Why call some of them actors and some of them actresses in a category? As a category, why not just leave them all as actors? They all put on a costume and recite lines in front of an audience. Why is gender important? It is not like female heads of state where there are only a few, and making a category is useful, it is more like tall actors and short actors, with half in each category. Not a useful distinction. I just do not see the point of putting Robin Wright into one category and Robin Williams into another. Apteva (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, because with rare exceptions men play men and women play women. Gender is very defining in acting, I'd say more so than any other profession. There plainly is a distinction. To disacknolwedge that is foolish.oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit this is about defining what gender role you wish to assign to women in theatre, film and television. Your opinion is far superior to the people in those positions, who hire and produce. I suggest doing some research and forgetting ones own opinion on this. I have said my piece and cast my vote. But if this changes more than just a category changes.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Amadscientist, how about you try a little basic research yourself?

Take for example the five most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress: Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, Sandra Bullock, Meryl Streep, and Natalie Portman. Between them, they have played hundreds of roles, and I don't see a single male role in their lists of parts.

Oknazevad's point is not about wikipedia editors trying to assign roles. It is about the reality of how those responsible for assigning roles in this occupation do their job, and the evidence is that gender is a defining factor. Surely even a mad scientist can pay some attention to the evidence? --16:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Split. When was the last time that males had equal chances at female roles or females had equal chances at male roles? Shakespeare, when males had 100% chance of both and females had 0% chance of both? Unlike height, which can change over time and which has no clear boundaries, whether you have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes is permanent and just almost always unambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split. Of all professions acting is more than any other defined by the performer's gender. To act otherwise (pardon the pun) is stupid. Whether or not to use the term "actress" is far less important; I'd be fine with "fenale actor" as its perfectly descriptive. Actress is still used commonly, though, and it's persistence is likely a result of the defining nature of gender in acting. But that just re-emphasizes the fact that not having separate categories is a bit of foolishness that doesn't reflect reality. Wikipedia shouldn't advocate changes. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per BrownHairedGirl (I was actually leaning the other way before I read her response). With the general grumble that Wikipedia should have been paying its developers to overhaul the antiquated category system to have a decent, usable display comparable to a well-designed template and allow seamless integration of subcategories, to the point where this vote would have no real effect because you could view things either way anyway. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per BrownHairedGirl. Also echo Wnt's grumble about wikimedia needing a better category system. PaleAqua (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose The use of the term actress is not just offensive it is meant to seperate by gender in a way meant to descriminate. Historicly the reason the term is just actor is because for many years women were not allowed on the stage and when they finally were the distinction was meant to notify the audience at a time when some would still not want to watch a woman perform. Yes, men have and still do perform female roles and women play male roles. Parts that were written for a male have been altered to allow a female performer to step into the role. There are a number of exapmles. Sigorney Weaver in Alien portrays a character that was written as a male lead. In theatre there have been a number of male roles going to females, like the character of Dr. Scott in The Rocky Horror Show. This is less about gender and more about professionalism. The term is "actor" not actress. As a male seamstress I can tell you there is no such thing as Seamster. Should we have a category for male seamstress (probably don't have either category but that is still a good point I believe) There are other examples but to me this is stepping back Wikipedia and not improving it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of this argument conflates the question of whether to categorise actors by gender with the question of what terminology to use for the gendered categories. We can call it Category:Actresses, Category:Women in acting, Category:Women actors, Category:Female actors or whatever ... but the first question is whether to have such a category.
    Amadscientist's reference to Sigourney Weaver is yet another example of cherry-picking, or the or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, a practice repeatedly used by those opposed to categorising actors by gender. A brief scrutiny of Sigourney Weaver's career shows that Wikipedia lists ~56 film roles which she has played: AFAICS, every one those roles is female, apart from the male role she played in the four Alien films. All of her 10 television roles are female characters.
    As I noted above, the 5 most recent winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress have between them played hundreds of roles, and I see not one male part in those long lists. The roles played by those actors are not limited by their nationality, yet we do categorise them by nationality ... but even though they are determined by gender, some editors go extraordinary lengths to deny this easily demonstrable fact. What is going on here? Why are some editors so adamantly opposed to categorisation by gender that they repeatedly deny reality? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At present our policy on signatures in non-Latin characters is that editors with names in non-Latin character sets are "encouraged" to add Latin characters as a courtesy to other users. I really think that should be upgraded to a mandatory requirement. (Wild notions dept.: possibly even to the point where the signature settings would warn you if your signature doesn't contain at least one Latin word, but I'm sure somebody would find a reason to balk at that.)

Please note that I'm not suggesting that we ban non-Latin names. (That's a bad idea; see much previous discussion.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat related issue (where people cannot communicate with a user due to their name and a MediaWiki problem) was discussed at VPT here (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that this presumes that users know, or care, or would even be bothered to, customize their signatures. Requiring a subset of users, especially those who may not know English all that well (because many of our non-Latin users are SUL users from other Wikipedias) to figure out how to customize their sigs, just isn't realistic. --Jayron32 04:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't think that it's practical to require every SUL user to change their signature upon arrival, no. However, I think that it should be the case that if a user asks you in good faith to add a Latin component to your signature, you should have to. At present, there's a loophole; even as an administrator, I can't require someone to modify their signature in that way. Making it so that any editor, not just administrators, is entitled to ask, would reduce the amount of administrative overhead (i.e., having to go find an administrator to tell someone to change their signature). If they declined, then enforcement could be requested. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before we discuss how to ram this down people's throats it might be good to discuss why we would want to in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it makes no sense to leave a loophole that could conceivably be used at a future date by a person to justify making it difficult for other editors to interact with them. I'm far from the first person to propose something like this. (E.g.: 1, 2.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make rules that inconvenience well meaning people just to stop hypothetical future people who may or may not use "loopholes" to disrupt Wikipedia. People being disruptive are blocked for being disruptive. There's no need for this additional rule. --Jayron32 18:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That somebody, any participant on Wikipedia, may suggest and encourage a user to add a Latin component... I'm fine with that. That is even in the guideline. To require, coerce, suggest that they may be banned or to use any sort of threat of any kind that they must change the signature and that they are required to have a Latin component? Absolutely not! You should not have to do anything at all, even if you are participating in a multitude of discussions and have tens of thousands of edits. Admins especially shouldn't be forcing this down anybody's throat or even using some tool of some kind to make the change on behalf of that user. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have to do anything at all... because? I'm here to discuss this, but just "no no no" isn't very illuminating. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Why "forcing" a user to do this? In a project being run by volunteers, this is a pretty lousy way to treat those same volunteers and to piss them off to the point that they don't even both with future contributions. Coercion never works in terms of regulating behavior. This is also a situation where instead of a person committing an act (such as vandalism, sock puppetry, or engaging in an edit war), the person is guilty of inaction and failure to actually perform some sort of act. Such things should never be a part of a volunteer project, ever. Wikipedia doesn't even require users to log in for editing, why should they be "forced" to create some sort of standardized signature? --Robert Horning (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you feel comfortably if in Arabic Wikipedia, after you show up to fix an interwiki link, you get a message in Arabic on your talk page, and next time you show up in a year to fix another interwiki link you find yourself blocked?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had messages in other languages before. You know what I do when I get them? I read them. Anyway, your example doesn't even make sense. Why would someone request a signature change from someone who had never used their signature in a discussion? If you're not specifically referring to a signature policy, well, that's what's under discussion here. Incidentally, we're in a privileged situation here. The Latin script is so widely read that it's unlikely that another language project will have sufficient difficulty in reading Latin user names to the point that they need to formulate a policy. Possible, but unlikely. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really see a case as having been made that the proposed rule would even be a net benefit, let alone a case strong enough to justify compelling users to comply. In fact, I think it is likely to be less confusing if the user name and the name used in the signature at least in some way reflect each other. Monty₈₄₅ 04:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. Has this been a problem lately that we need a policy-solution to it? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the need. Legoktm (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I was getting at in my first post. Show us the problem before you present a rather draconian solution to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Solutions in search of problems lead to instruction creep and a more complicated/hard to use encyclopedia. Solution to actual problems, on the other hand, (hopefully) improve the encyclopedia. So unless there is an actual problem... --– Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm just not sure what problem we're trying to solve here. If you need to address the user by name, then use cut and paste. If you need links to the person's userpages, then find the name in the page history. I've never found myself unable to do my work because of someone else's username.
  You should also think about what you mean by "mandatory". The only true "mandatory" situations are (1) the software won't let you, and (2) we'll block you if you do. Do you really want to block people over this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I think Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and I'm very disappointed to find that it uses interlocking signs for male and female to indicate that an article has to do with sexuality. I don't expect Wikipedia to be behind the times or exclusionary and I hope this is just an oversight that will be corrected very soon.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.89.245 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to {{Sex-stub}} and similar templates? If you wish to suggest that a template be altered to adopt a new image, everyone, readers included, are welcome to comment on the template's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a complaint about {{WikiProject Sexuality}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do it just on the basis of the acceptance of alternative lifestyles, because that delves into a more sensitive field that Wikipedia would do well to remain unbiased in. However, despite personal views of homosexuality, it is empirically a large part of "human sexuality" as a broad topic and should thus have some sort of recognition, but on the basis of statistical fact, not sexual equality. Dab8fz (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When is it appropriate (and when is it inappropriate) to link to an essay on policy and guideline pages... are their limitations, and if so what are they? Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In practice, I think it is unstable. WP:IAR and WP:N have had many and few linked essays, for example. In theory, I think for an essay to be linked, it must be comprehensive, NPOV (not required for essays, but the best are NPOV), and directly relevant. Essays that preceded and informed the writing of the policy/guideline should be linked (eg Uncle G on Notability). Essays disputing policy are a complicated question. Where there are many assays, a link to a collection of essay links may be appropriate. A few essay that are for "further reading", which explain and are fully consistent with the intent of the policy/guideline should be welcome. Note that the intended audience of project pages are a different group to the authors of project pages. I think this is often forgotten, and policy pages are used for strained, high-level-language debates between old Editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be some some level of "support" for the essay before we link to it? (Not necessarily a majority, but some level of support)? My personal feeling is that it would be appropriate include essays that outline "minority views".... if the minority that holds them is significant enough. However, if an essay only reflect the views of a few editors, then linking to it on a policy/guideline page would be inappropriate. Am I off base? Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that POV essays should not be linked directly from policy. POV essays include majority view and minority view essays. A neutral point of view essay should not be subject to support or opposition, but should be widely accepted as comprehensive and fair, and should assist in comprehension and interpretation of the policy page. It may include mention of continuing debate, and may itself link to POV essays, if first putting then in context. Including direct links to advocacy for or against the status quo is likely to be confusing to random readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "link to" mean? Inline links? {{Further}} links? See also links? Navboxes? The standards will be different in each case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This part of articles is out of hand. Many of the links have no direct relation to the article, while others are simply not notable to the article. It is also constantly abused by advertisers or people trying to promote an idea or topic. It is too much to fix. Why do these sections even exist? Shouldn't it just be for synonyms? I haven't actually read the guideline or policy on this. Sorry if this is in the wrong section. 198.151.130.65 (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a similar problem with "External links". 198.151.130.65 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:See also
• WP:External links

Go forth and read. I would agree that these sections can become cluttered, so be bold and fix it! :) --Izno (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, of course much of the time these sections have issues, but that's true of ANYTHING on Wikipedia. They are both extremely valid and useful to have when done right. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like to see was some NPOV standards especially for "See also"-links, since in my experience some editors use the section solely in order to make a point. An example could be someone adding Police state to the "See also" section in Capitalism (a real example iirc) or something similar. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular example seems like a clear vio of NPOV and I would have no problem with someone removing it. A link to an article offering another perspective on a topic, say like Marxism, I'm ok with that, but when the connection is extremely tangential or just spam, treat it like any other chaff that needs to be cleaned up by editors. I guess a guideline might be helpful, for some parameters like length... For an example, I've seen "See also" sections that had dozens of links; all were perfectly relevant to the article(s), but it would have made more sense to work them into the body of the article(s) somehow so that there was some context for the reader, rather than a big mess o' links.OttawaAC (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of editing of those sections. I don't think there's nearly the problem that you seem to think there is. If you think somebody is too tangential or spam, just remove it. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received a spam email advertising the services of this company: https://www.wiki-pr.com/ Apparently what they do is they charge companies money to create and maintain wikipedia pages about their companies Is there anything that can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.129.99 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Every page we’ve created for our clients remains on Wikipedia exactly how the client envisioned it." Obviously, they don't follow WP:OWN, even though they insist that they hold to our rules. Can we get an injunction against people like this for soiling our good name? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how they can live up to such a claim, unless the articles they create are extremely low in traffic and non-noticeable (and thus not very useful for their clients) they will at some point experience changes from other editors. It seems like empty advertisement rhetoric to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freelance writers and editors, or heck, even salaried writers and editors, don't make a lot of money at what they do. Kind of like all the aspiring singers, artists, athletes, and so on in the world. Making a good living at it is not easy. Lots of gifted writers get paid peanuts. Supply and demand. Even if this sort of attempt to game the WP editing process took off, it would wind up being undercut by massive competition in short order. (Visual editor is coming.) Proving that you could somehow draw extra eyeballs to a WP article would be more of a selling point than claiming that you can leave an article's original PR copy untouched (unedited generally = unviewed/unread). Just my two cents worth. OttawaAC (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I have been approached by and have talked with several organizations about writing Wikipedia articles about their organizations. While I haven't been paid for such efforts, I do try to explain Wikipedia's mission and especially go into the role of the 5 pillars. Trying to explain NPOV policy seems to be the toughest part, although I have turned down some requests simply because I thought the organizations failed WP:NOTE. If there is a group which is trying to help out in a public relations situation in regards to writing up something that generally follows Wikipedia rules, I don't have a problem with it. I do know that there are some in the Wikipedia community which have a huge problem with paid edits (Jimmy Wales in particular), so I'll try to leave that can of worms alone.

One thing that does disturb me though is how the leadership page of their website has their "Vice President of Operations" claim to be somebody who has volunteers for years with the Wikimedia Foundation... as if he was a former employee. I think that is stretching the truth quite a bit, unless he actually did volunteer in the Wikimedia office more directly. I have volunteered to be an editor on Wikipedia, but I don't consider myself to be a "volunteer editor for the Wikimedia Foundation". Heck, I have been editing here since before there was a Wikimedia Foundation. --Robert Horning (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole line of business is basically dishonest, so I would not be at all surprised if they were just lying or grossly exaggerating. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One peculiar thing is their emphasis on keeping their clients' identities secret -- most PR/marketing firms try to publicize their client list. I can't figure out the reason for that, unless they don't want to draw vandals to the articles of their clients by publicizing their identities...they must not have the resources to deal with that. I'm just guessing, though. OttawaAC (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we knew which pages they wrote, the pages would end up at AFD and the authors' accounts would be blocked for spamming. We don't have a policy that supports that behavior, but that's what would actually happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is dishonest, lying, or grossly exaggerated with what they are claiming on the web site? I think it is in part a condemnation of the current caustic nature of the editorial process on Wikipedia that punishes amateurs and new contributors severely for minor mistakes and assumes bad faith on the part of their contributions. That you may need the services of a full-time professional writer to navigate through some of the arcane rules of Wikipedia in order to get an article about your business to stick may even be somewhat reasonable given what I've seen on Wikipedia lately. The process of creating a new article is increasingly bureaucratic. I've been in edit wars over redlinks where the assumption is that if the article doesn't exist, there shouldn't be a redlink at all due to a lack of notability... otherwise there would be an article written about that topic. Every single article I've tried to start in the past couple of years has gone through an AfD process and often been PROD'd within three minutes of its creation. Not one has ever been actually deleted either, but I had to scramble with finding more sources rather than simply making a stub.

Guaranteeing that the "page will stick" (aka it will survive an AfD review) seems like a prudent claim to make. People who are experienced editors here on Wikipedia could likely tell inside of about five minutes if there is enough material about a company to justify that it is notable or not. A brand new start-up with no PR efforts would likely be advised by this company to not even bother with their services yet. Working with a client to dig up facts about a company, to find details... especially press releases and news articles about a company or other organization that can correct inaccuracies, that sounds like a really good service to be performing. That is good not just for their client but also for Wikipedia.

Seriously, it sounds like there are some people who are bent out of shape simply because somebody else is getting paid to do stuff for Wikipedia and they aren't. The service being provided here is to make sure the pages aren't perceived as spam, and that factual errors like the BS which John Seigenthaler had to go through (and prompted the creation of the BLP policy) doesn't happen to the clients of this particular service. If you don't like seeing services like this pop up, Wikipedia needs to become much more new user friendly. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD tags don't get applied consistently, and in practise, I've found that some of the ways that make articles sticky are to cite at least 3 sources, preferably with one of them from a large newspaper, an academic journal, and/or another encyclopedia (or similar pubication). Those types of sources aren't realistic for every notable topic, but in practise, that's what's needed to evade a speedy delete. What's contradictory about that is that it isn't necessary to have at least 3 reliable sources cited, not according to WP policy. In years past, many articles were written and kept with no sources cited whatsoever. Standards seem to have changed over the years, or at least editors' expectations have been raised.

Interestingly, I know I've written (or substantially expanded) an article in a good way not when it "sticks" or remains unchanged, but rather, when other editors jump in and make changes to improve it. It shows that I've written something in a way that invites editors to read it, take an interest in the topic, and contribute to the article. And the article ends up improving with the other contributions. It also means the article is updated and essentially monitored against vandalism by more editors. Volunteers, I might add. Collaboration still beats paid PR hacks, IMO.OttawaAC (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By definition any article that hasn't been written yet is something that hasn't been considered in the past and doesn't have a "community of volunteers" who are editing that article. That would imply it is unlikely to get right away, if ever, a large group of people to jump in and start to edit the article. I have had larger articles I've written get some of the ancillary kinds of editors jumping in though, including people who perform spell checks, assign categories, and do other cleanup around Wikipedia. Stubs typically don't get that to happen but more substantial articles are much more likely to see stuff like that go on.

Emergent technologies and topics, for example a small start-up that has a huge fan base but hasn't really hit mainstream media yet, those kind of topics tend to be real problematic as editors strain to find reliable sources to justify the article. I have seen some of these kind of topics end up having the number of sources available explode over time when news media finally recognize the idea. Wikipedia itself is a good example of how that happened, where for awhile nobody noticed and then suddenly it seemed like it was on the news everywhere and even being referenced in popular culture like fiction in books, television, or in comic strips.

BTW, I would agree that some professional staff working with public relations officers of a company can cross the line and go overboard and be overly protective to the point of WP:OWN and other similar kinds of problems. It is a fine line between simply offering assistance to help improve the quality of an article and correct legitimate errors to going all out and simply pushing a particular POV by having a sanitized article free of any criticism. I have seen some Wikipedians who are long-time editors who have offered reasonable advise to would-be public relations people trying to fix Wikipedia articles. It is something where you need to tread lightly if the article is about you or the company you represent. Still, I'm suggesting that this particular company could still have a niche market and serve as a valuable kind of professional service that is needed for a company that wants to have a properly vetted article on Wikipedia. This shouldn't be feared by the Wikipedia community but rather be encouraged so far as people who are doing something like this professionally shouldn't be afraid to discuss that they do this kind of thing on their user page and that edits they perform, as long as they are cooperative with other editors and abide by general Wikipedia guidelines, should not have a knee jerk reaction to revert or even delete those edits. --Robert Horning (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so, is there anything we can do to protect wikipedia against these unscrupulous professional spammers? 147.188.129.99 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors,

Many of you are well aware of the convenience in using web citation as a source. And sometimes, official information are only available online as the only source. But the main problem of citing them is that they tend to disappear within a few years, sometimes even in months. Some articles rely heavily on citing official websites, so when the source links slowly go dead, we're facing a problem of not only link rot but an article rot as well. The current template/tools do not support/suggest archiving or using permalinks, so most editors neglect to archive them. Most of the editors are vigilant on an article only around the time of its creation, or around when it is still a hot topic, but by the time the link and the article rot, the source material will no longer be available, and most editors will no longer care.

I've come across this problem while I was working on an old film's article. It had been so well-sourced with official materials, which means it had been very reliable until the movie distributors decided to stop hosting the information, as it no longer affect their publicity or sales. First-party sources like official websites of products or movies only exist as long as they serve the distributors' sales or publicity. So now we are busy finding and relocating the information, but by now the film is 13 years old, and it was so hard to find any reliable substitute, if at all. And we only have two editors there.

The suggestion to this has already been proposed. Per Wikipedia:Link rot, we are suggested that we use a web archive like http://www.webcitation.org to provide us permalinks. But I find that this is not enough. Since the current templates do not support or suggest adding archive date nor archive URL (see below), most editors will take it as the only information required in the blank field is enough. As a result, most articles citing websites have only the URLs and the site themselves as sources, and when they go down, your citation and the reliability of the article with it.

{{cite web
 | last =
 | first =
 | authorlink =
 | coauthors =
 | title =
 | work =
 | publisher =
 | date =
 | url =
 | format =
 | doi =
 | accessdate = }}

{{cite web
 | last = Spiegel
 | first = Rachel
 | title = Research: Thalido...
 | url=http://science-educat...
 | accessdate = 30 April 2006 }}

{{cite web
| title =
| url =
| date = 
| accessdate = }}

{{cite web
 | last = Hansen
 | first = James E.
 | authorlink = James E. Hansen
 | last2 = Ruedy | first2 = R.
 | last3 = Sato | first3 = M.
 | last4 = Lo | first4 = K.
 | title = GISS Surface Temperature An...
 | work =
 | publisher = [[Goddard Institute for...
| date = December 15, 2005
 | url = http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
 | format =
 | doi =
 | accessdate = September 28, 2006 }}

{{Citation
 | last =
 | first =
 | author-link =
 | last2 =
 | first2 =
 | author2-link =
 | title =
 | date =
 | year =
 | url =
 | accessdate = }}

{{Citation
 | last = Spiegel
 | first = Rachel
 | title = Research: Thalido...
 | url=http://science-educat...
 | accessdate = 30 April 2006 }}

{{Citation
 | last1 = Hansen | first1 = James E.
 | author1-link = James Hansen
 | last2 = Ruedy | first2 = R.
 | last3 = Sato | first3 = M.
 | last4 = Lo | first4 = K.
 | title = GISS Surface Temperature An...
 | publisher = [[Goddard Institute for ...
| date = December 15, 2005
 | year = 2005
 | url = http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
 | accessdate = September 28, 2006 }}

Not only that, old editors usually use a gadget like Provelt to make citing sources easier. And of course, Provelt follows the citation template and do not provide a box or put archive URLs or archive date.

So to encourage the use of lasting sources and to give an article highest longevity, I suggest we add

|archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=

to the template, and program Provelt to follow the template accordingly. I must emphasis that Provelt needs to be changed as well, as most editors tend to use the easier method. And the Policy and Guidelines should probably suggest archiving first-party sources too. This should fix the problem of link rot and article rot in the long run.

I would like to hear some opinions and suggestions. Anything is appreciated. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You took those examples from Wikipedia:Citation templates, which needs an extreme makeover. If you look at the documentation pages for {{citation}}, {{cite web}} or any of the other Citation Style 1 templates, you will find that the archive parameters are supported and well documented.

Archive.org and the others are not a panacea. They honor the robots meta tag on sites like The New York Times and will not archive them if they go dead or paywalled. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's even worse than that. Archive.org may archive a site not blocked by robots.txt or meta tag. But if the site dies and a new owner takes over the domain and adds a blocking robots.txt, all the historical archives of that site are lost, because IA won't distinguish change of ownership and doesn't seem to archive robots.txt, or honor archived robots.txt. It's DMCA-like control over somebody else's history. --Lexein (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Thank you for the information. I didn't dig deep enough. Still, including those into the citation template page would've been nice, IMO, since a lot of new editors will look there first. And a change in Provelt would be nice too. Regarding some non-archivable sources, yes, you're right, but encouraging the archiving wouldn't hurt. Although this won't eliminate the problem, it will surely save some trouble in the long run. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an (ironically) archive discussion at Wikipedia:Citation templates that I need to dig up. It only gives short list of commonly used parameters which can be misleading. And it mixes up a bunch of different citation styles. I have done a lot of work cleaning up the Citation Style 1 template documentation. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I understand very well what you're talking about. Does the first 'it' in your paragraph refers to 'the archive discussion' or WP:Citation templates? Sorry, can you clarify? I'm not a native-speaker, and I'm decent in English, but I'm not that good. Anthonydraco (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A side note, I want to tell you that if Provelt doesn't include boxes for archive URLs and archive links when you cite web, people will over look those and it becomes a tedious job to editors who come later. Especially when they have to do it without Provelt. Not to mention that it will be harder to find the sources when the links are dead. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at the User:ProveIt GT talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will go there. In the mean time, would anyone like to give an opinion on adding a suggestion to the WP:Citing sources guideline page to suggest users to archive first-party sources that are prone to disappear? Anthonydraco (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the place to ask but... Is there any way for editors to be alerted when a page is added to a given category (something like a watchlist... but pegged to the category and not the page)? Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to the category and select "related changes" in the toolbox at the left of the page. You can also copy the raw direction of that link and paste it somewhere in your userpage, so you can easily access it anytime without going first to the category Cambalachero (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that still requires periodically doing a manual check of the category (which can be all but impossible if the category is large). What I am asking about is whether there is any way to get an automatic alert, that would tell the members of a wikiproject "someone has added category X to a page (any page)" ... an alert that is tied to the category the way watchlist change notifications are tied to individual pages. I am looking for something that would notify editors who are interested in monitoring a specific category... something that would tell them that it has been added to a page (which they might not have on their article watchlist). So that they could know to go to the page and check that the categorization is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a script that had that functionality, and would cause new pages added to a category to appear in your watchlist. Unfortunately, the script, User:Ais523/catwatch.js no longer seems to work, and I haven't had any luck getting anyone to fix it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article under question was this. It was first proposed for PROD by me, when the prod was removed, stating that an AfD must be followed. Then I posted it for AfD, during which time a CSD template was added and then removed because the article was under AfD. Finally the AfD closed as no consensus with no prejudice towards speedy deletion because of no quorum.

After the AfD remained inconclusive, I posted the article for CSD when it was removed stating contest speedy deletion as indicating importance/significance ("prominent Islamic scholar") - please start another AfD discussion in a few months if you think this should be deleted.

My question is - 1) Is removing the CSD template allowed under 'contesting' it? [If so, then it looks surreptitiously like PROD] 2) In your opinion, does the article look notable enough to stand? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That an article is at AfD is actually not an appropriate rationale for removing a CSD, and authors cannot remove CSD templates from their articles. No comment on the article itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'll only reply to your question under 1), because I have not yet reviewed the article in question: yes. Anyone but the article creator can remove a speedy deletion tag, because the idea is that speedy deletion is only appropriate when the deletion of the article would be entirely uncontroversial, if it was sent to AfD. SD is a way to ease the burden on AfD, nothing more. The only difference between PROD and CSD is that the article creator can remove a PROD nomination, but not a SD tag. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reviewed the article and can confirm that speedy deletion per A7 would have been wrong, in my opinion: the article clearly indicates why this person is significant. I'm not sure Abdul Ghaffar Naqshbandi is notable — mainly because I'm unfamiliar with the topic area —, but I believe the only way to get this article deleted is through AFD. The last one could have been closed as soft delete, but the other editor would probably have objected to that. So, in short, if you want the article deleted, renominate it, hoping that, this time, someone will comment... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While instructions make it clear that the creator of an article may not remove an CSD tag, that is mainly because article creators almost never remove them properly. That said, if in your judgement the creator is right about the reason for removing it, don't replace it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I was previously under the opinion that only admins could reove CSD templates, and regular editors could just oppose it, following which the admin would decide.

Question 2 - What then is the main difference between a CSD and a PROD. Both are the same, only the former has an admin deleting it, while it autodeletes for the latter. Right?TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion is designed for cases where there is no need for discussion nad has restrictive criteria that must be met for an article to be deleted. An article that meets any of the criteria may be immediately deleted with no discussion. As a result, the scope of speedy deletion is limited to only the most obvious cases, a CSD tag may be removed by anyone but the article creator; if removed improperly, it can theoretically be re-added, but in most cases subsequent reviewers would just refer the matter to AfD. A WP:PROD may be used to delete an article for any reason that could get it deleted at WP:AFD, but is meant for uncontroversial cases, and thus may be removed by anyone. After the prod expires, the article is added to a deletion category and an admin will review the article and either delete it, or dispute the PROD. Monty₈₄₅ 17:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question- Can I file an AfD right now, seeing how the previous one closed?

I am still of the opinion of taking the article to AfD under the notablity criteria, but not being familiar with the exact policies and examples, its prudent to ask here if I should. So if you can please vote Keep or Delete, it would make it easier for me to understand if an AfD would be futile here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any article can be taken to AFD multiple times, but in general it is expected that some time passes between nominations; if you instantly start a new AFD as soon as the old one closes, it will be declined rapidly as well. Give it 2-3 months and try again then. --Jayron32 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that. I just actually looked at the AFD, and it received zero comments despite being relisted three times. I think it would not be unreasonable to start a new AFD given that literally no one commented at the old one. However, not everyone may agree with me. I am but one person with one opinion. --Jayron32 00:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. 1 vote already, and so it shant be closing as no consensus now [Atleast for lack of quorum that is]. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Admins may add the resolved tag here if it is an appropriate tag to add [reply]

Everything related to global warming takes it as fact. Isn't this bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's the scientific opinion on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No. WP:Making necessary assumptions reads:

"When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc. It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. A brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however."

Hope that helps. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example, we treat the Apollo 11 moon landing as fact. That doesn't mean there aren't dissenters, but the scientific evidence is that we did, in fact, land on the moon. It is not biased for the Wikipedia article to state that we did land on the moon. Addendum: To clarify: the rise in global temperature has been established as fact. The remaining controversy revolves around the exact cause, and what (if anything) we can do about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Executive summary:

• A new policy is needed to allow for speedy or more efficient deletion of articles on events that have not happened yet, because the current policies and guidelines that apply to those situations do not directly address that circumstance.

Full rationale:

I am seeing a trend of article creation for things that simply have not occurred yet, such as musician's tours, annual events, etc. These eventually go to AfD, but that invariably becomes a mess. I'm hoping that this is something that has been seen enough in the community to preclude the need to cite examples, but please let me know if I need to start linking AfDs as supporting evidence, and I will.

Now, there is a reasonable expectation of these events happening, but the policies that should preclude article creation have holes in them that need to be plugged in relation to this issue:

• WP:CRYSTAL does not cover this adequately (it allows inclusion based on future occurrence alone)
• WP:NOTNEWS also skirts this situation (a tour isn't really "breaking news")
• WP:NCONCERT only gives notability guidelines without addressing timing (and has a "financial impact" loophole to make an argument that how fast the tour sells out in a given area can indicate notability, which is absolutely foolish with the advent of ever-larger arenas and electronic ticket purchasing)
• WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E address non-notable people in otherwise notable events.
• WP:UNDUE applies to sources within articles, not weight of an individual event in a larger ongoing context.
• WP:TOOSOON is an essay without force of policy.

There are other policies and guidelines that can be cited in some individual cases (generally CRIME, related to ongoing cases), but invariably, when these things go to AfD, there are a slew of ILIKEIT keep votes with no policy support for said votes (who also tend to abuse the noms and the delete voters). The result is a lot of wasted time on what should be open and shut cases, because the ILIKEIT votes (not policy based) also preclude NAC based on deletes (which are policy-based) because the AfD then becomes "controversial." I'd also note that Wikinews has been eroded by this type of editing, and that has been noticed higher up, to the point of potential closure of that project.

Therefore, there appears to be an issue that is not only wasting editors' time, but is adversely affecting a sister project. Very succinctly, I'd like to see a policy that thoroughly precludes writing about events prior to their occurrence. A third-party source cannot reliably report on an event unless it has happened, and we already disallow speculation in articles as-is. In reality, what is happening is OR based on cobbling information together. I think it is one of those things where fans build their "fan-ness" by doing things like this ("Well, I was the one who created the tour/event article on Wikipedia, so can i have a backstage pass to your next show?")

I'm not sure what to call this new policy, but we pretty much need something with teeth to allow these types of articles to be speedied if possible, and at least to have something better at AfD to back up NAC policy-based closures in the face of ILIKEIT votes (I have an issue with "controversy" in voting being based in "X is notable just because") just so these types of articles aren't diverting admin attention.

From a policy perspective, I would indicate the following items as a starting point:

• For one-off events, there's no reason not to write about the event objectively afterwards, if only to find out if it really makes a difference.
• For long-term events, like US presidential elections, the campaign trail is part of the process, so while the event starts before the date of elections, the event has begun and has been reported on by sources, so it would be fair to write about it prior to Election Day of whatever year it is.
• For concert tours, when a show happens, there should be reports available, and it avoids any issues around cancellations.

In the end, I think a new policy could address several outstanding issues across Wikipedia and contribute to a higher quality of content. MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can speedy these, unless they are 1) obvious hoaxes, or 2) so far out to be impossible to write an article. The latter is going to vary for what the event is: we would likley have articles for Olympics 8-12 years out due to the city vetting process, but I would not expect articles on next years pro sports seasons. Because of the variance in time, there's no way a clear CSD criteria could be made. These arguments are completely fair at AFD, of course, and a PROD can be tried first, but I just don't think CSD is right for these. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, but I still think there's got to be a limit of reason somewhere short of having to spend a potential two weeks on the deletion process. Case in point: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013, which was created within 24 hours (possibly much less, I'm not sure of the time zone diffs) of the ending of the 2012 contest, because absolutely nothing has been announced about it yet, not even the city. The article even noted this. So the article was prodded, and then the prod was contested, then requiring an AfD. I see no rational reason for that to be allowable in good faith, and thus there are still policy holes here that need addressing, even if it is just to create a more solid foundation for allowable content on Wikipedia. MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, are we likely going to have an article on the 2013 contest? Sure, certainly in another year, possibly sooner. IT's a good faith creation of an article which for right now should be a merge and redirect to a different page but not deleted. It would be different if it were , say, the 2020 contest which there's no way it can be talked about in a reasonable manner. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The very premise of this proposal is fatally flawed. Why? Because even the proposal itself makes it clear that there is no consensus that such articles should always be deleted, thereby making it entirely inappropriate as a criterion for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header and the list of non-criteria for the basic rules of what is and is not an appropriate criterion. The list of non-criteria specifcally mentions proposals based on WP:NOT, which CRYSTAL is part of. FYI I will be posting a link to this discussion at WT:CSD so that users interested in speedy deletion are aware of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See, the problem with categorical rules, is there are often many exceptions. What about 2016 Summer Olympics or 2020 Summer Olympics? Ok, maybe we can identify what about them makes them different, maybe the bidding process, but now we are into intricacies that need to be discussed, aka a deletion discussion -> AFD. Monty₈₄₅ 03:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure why "the event has to have documentably begun" does not cover the above, but there seems to be a serious objection to purpose, regardless of content. Is there any objection, then, to taking this stuff back and reworking it as a content inclusion policy/guideline that is not going to be used for purposes of CSD? The policy holes I mentioned are there whether or not there's a CSD involved. Assuming there's no objection to that, would it make more sense to address the hole in each policy separately to avoid creating a new policy to deal with, or create a new policy to cover the gaps because it's easier than running multiple policy discussions? MSJapan (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, I would argue that those Olympics articles are useful. An article on the upcoming Olympics is going to be of interest to readers for a long time before the event begins, at least as we normally use begin. We could call the bidding and selection process enough to count as having begun, but how is that really that different from a concert being booked, or an upcoming TV show being under contract (but maybe not even having started filming)? Monty₈₄₅ 05:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the rationale of creating tour articles six months in advance is mainly that they inherit notability from the artist, when policy indicates otherwise. Additionally, most of the links are ticket sales sites and fan blogs. The content of said articles is no different and no more extensive than if one went to the artist's site, and there's no way to address the content of the tour before it happens. That is very different from the pre-coverage on the Olympics, where even the bidding process is a big deal. MSJapan (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with trying to create a CSD for even articles that are created several months prior to a band touring is that even there, there's a difference between, say, the Rolling Stones or Lady Gaga announcing a tour (which will nearly assuredly be notable) that's 6 months out, and My Local Just-Barely-Notable Garage Band announcing their tour 6 months out. You can't create a CSD criteria that really cuts out the latter, while leaving the former. Obviously, there is other content problems (you are pointing to the problem with these early tour articles being to serve a commercial purpose (how and where to buy tickets, instead of just discussing the tour) but that can be corrected and merged, or as a last resort deleted after discussion at AFD.

The point is that while many (including myself) agree that people should not be created articles far too soon before an event's realistic frame of occurrance, we can't simply use CSD to remove these. PROD works, AFD works. Of course, if they meet other CSD like being a hoax, sure. But if it is otherwise meeting the minimum need of being verifiable, we're pretty much going to have to go the long way to remove it if it needs removing. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think notability standards work plenty well in terms of dealing with the fringe cases of what you are talking about here, and no additional policy is really needed. If the Rolling Stones can say they are going to do a concert tour in 2020 and there are sufficient reliable sources of information that have plenty of details about that concert tour, there should be an article on Wikipedia about that tour. Reliable sources mean something other than just the band's web page, but rather something of substance like a major article in the New York Times or in Billboard Magazine (take your pick). The article should be about that topic, not a casual reference like they plan on taking their last tour in 2020. In other words, standard notability issues. The local "just barely notable by themesleves" garage band is not likely to have such reliable sources except in the case of something truly exceptional that would be noteworthy in and of itself.

The Olympics are particularly noteworthy because they do have this kind of press coverage decades in advance. There is all kinds of political maneuvering in terms of who gets to become the host city along with issues about what new sports are going to be introduced and other substantive details that can certainly flesh out such an article well over a decade in advance. Logos, pictures of venues (under construction, planned but announced, or even already built) and other very reasonable things can be added to such articles. You can say the same thing about the Super Bowl or the FIFA World Cup in terms of some advanced knowledge of the event that may be mentioned in popular media and other reliable sources. Outside of sports, you can even have articles about upcoming space probes like New Horizons, which has been extensively written about even in academic papers... sort of the holy grail of reliable sources. In that case it isn't just six months out but won't be doing its main mission until 2015.... is that a reason to force an AfD onto that article since it is about a future event more than six months from now? There is Timeline of Solar System exploration#Planned or scheduled which has a whole list of such future missions, including vehicles that haven't even been launched yet.

If the argument is that it is too hard to determine if something is noteworthy as a future event, I would say you are straining too hard at fine details. There really is no need for any sort of new policy. Sometimes it isn't easy to make a quick assessment, but that is why you need to find a specialist in the particular topic... of which Wikipedia has plenty. That is also sort of the point of AfD nominations, so such things can also be sorted out. Just don't be so quick to PROD something or make that AfD if you simply can't make the assessment quickly. --04:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A speedy delete is a terrible idea. A not-so-terrible idea is to create some sub-policy pages for crystal ball. So, have a crystal ball page for music tours, a crystal ball page for elections, sports events, etc. That would give something more relevant and specific to cite in these deletion discussion when they happen. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have always disliked the creation of stub articles for recurring events that have not happened yet. However, I agree that a speedy delete is not the right way to go on this... I would propose merger instead. An article like: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013 should start off as a short paragraph contained in the broader Junior Eurovision Song Contest article... as more information about the upcoming event becomes available, it can be expanded into a section ... and eventually get hived off into its own article. The same would be true for articles on annual sporting events. So... I think a stronger sub-policy for Crystal would be a great idea... we should have some guidance on where draw the line... After all, there is a reasonable expectation that there will still be a Winter Olympics in 12 years time... but it would be ridiculous for Wikipedia to have a "place-holder" stub article for the 2024 Winter Olympics at this time. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have 2024 Summer Olympics :) - but there has been genuine coverage of it and far in advance, like all Olympics. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there will never be a 2024 Winder Olympics, as the Winter Olympics have been moved to a two year offset from the summer games. There is, however, a 2022 Winter Olympics article that has plenty of reliable sources and information. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#inclusion of prehistoric terms in history of country templates and vice versa. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the essay WP:Hyphens and dashes. It is forward looking as currently Wikipedia extends the use of endashes to places that hyphens are normally used - in proper nouns.

There are three proposals:

Use only hyphens in article titles. For example, the article titled War in Afghanistan (2001–present) would be titled War in Afghanistan (2001-present), but correct punctuation, using an endash, would be done within the article.

1. Apteva (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support with browser/keyboard wp:Accessibility: Many keyboards do not have dashes, but hyphens are everywhere, which also contributes to the wp:COMMONNAME of many topics to still contain hyphens, even though trendy concepts might consider new partnerships should use dashes, while some marriages have used hyphenated compound surnames since prior centuries. Wikipedia should aim toward common punctuation, found on many computer keyboards, rather than relatively exotic symbols. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre comment, that. Nobody has suggested messing with the hyphens in married names. And most keyboards do have en dashes, in one form or another. My Mac keybaords have had it at option-hyphen since 1984, and Macs are not altogether rare. On Windows, it's harder, but since nobody has asked anyone to enter an en dash, and they're not necessary to access articles, even Windows users don't have any accessibility issues because of them. They're certainly not "exotic". Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's illogical that we should use the correct punctuation in articles' bodies but not in their titles. Yes, it is hard to type dashes, but redirects from titles with hyphens fixes that. David1217 ^{What I've done} 02:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   As pointed out in the discussion the redirect issue is not the biggest problem. Apteva (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Then what is the problem? David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   There are several. One is because it is impossible to have a URL that includes the endash - it is not a valid URL character and needs to be escaped. Another is that it is not on the keyboard, and so if I type in a hyphen there is nothing there. Apteva (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Then you can type the hyphenated version into the URL or search box, and you will be redirected to the proper title. David1217 ^{What I've done} 21:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmmm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Hale–Bopp . That wasn't too hard, let alone impossible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That is actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Hale%E2%80%93Bopp, though. Apteva (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Maybe it's a limitation of your browser, or a feature of mine, but I actually see it, actually click it, actually load it, and actually end up with it as I pasted it there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Both of our browsers do the same thing. They silently correct it before sending it over the Internet to the above escaped form. There are only a few characters that can occur in URLs, the rest need to be escaped. The characters that can be used are in URL, but they are a-z, A-Z, 0-9, -, _, and ~. There are other characters that are used for special purposes, #, %, &, ?, and others, for example, and need to be escaped if they are used in a file name. Apteva (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. The same as what David1217 wrote. No-one ever needs to type the en dash. Victor Yus (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per David1217 and Victor Yus. Typographical convention dictates en-dash, even in titles. —Wasell^(T) 09:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Unneeded restriction that would keep some titles from being written correctly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Unnecessary and inconsistent. Redirects correct the issue, and more modern browsers should be able to display en dashes in URLs, anyway. CtP (t • c) 22:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Nobody opposes hyphens in titles, but WP:TITLE and WP:MOS oppose using them as substitutes where en dashes are more correct. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen there is already always a redirect from one to the other. Using the title at a hyphen improves usability as it allows typing in the actual title. This is less important in getting to the article than it is in other uses for the article. Obviously wikilinks to articles so named can either use an endash or a hyphen, for example, within another article, the link can be [[War in Afghanistan (2001-present)|War in Afghanistan (2001–present)]], or simply go through the redirect, at War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Apteva (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of this works either way. It just looks better to have the correctly punctuated title shown at the top of the page. Victor Yus (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens are correctly used in hyphenated names, such as Julia Louis-Dreyfus and the comet Hale-Bopp. Endashes should not be extended to use in proper nouns. Instead common use is the standard to use, as stipulated in WP:TITLE.

1. Apteva (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support hyphens in nouns to match mainstream usage: Frankly, all the retro-fitting of endashes into long-term hyphenated names is really bizarre, peculiar, and I would not be surprised to hear a comedian quip, "Wikidashia" because the forcing of the awkward dashes into age-old terms is so unusual, off-beat, freaky and fringe, that it seems like some cult has envisioned Dashotopia with Wikipedia as its breeding ground for "Der Dashter–Race". For years, I have avoided the dash/hyphen discussions because I imagined that, surely, common sense would conclude how the en-dashed words were relatively rare exceptions, and hyphens should be favored as they have been in the world at large, for hundreds of years. Long before I first edited Wikipedia in mid-2001, I had heard the term "hyphenated Americans" and instantly understood the basic meaning, but it is another example of hyphen usage dating back centuries, as in "Mexican-American" (hence "Mexican-American War"). -Wikid77 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre comment, that. Nobody has suggested using en dashes in hyphenated-American constructs. And I'm pretty sure the Mexican–American War was not about Mexican-Americans. This is a place where understanding what the text means is actually facilitated by the punctuation. Similarly, nobody has suggested using an en dash in the hyphenated names of persons, as you seem to think. If you see an en dash between two surnames, you can be sure it refers to two persons, not to a person with a hyphenated name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Incorrect claim. Some proper nouns use endashes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   No one has been able to find an example of this. I have checked common use for many proper nouns and have yet to find one. Bridges came close but failed. I am not suggesting we say "proper nouns do not use endashes" I am suggesting we say "proper nouns defer to common usage, see WP:TITLE", which says the same thing - use common usage. Normally exceptions are trivial to find, but while no one has been able to suggest any exception it is better to err on the side of caution. But if anyone has an example of a proper noun, that in common usage, uses an endash, I would love to see it. Apteva (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Again, not opposing hyphens in proper nouns, just opposing Apteva's nonsense. He thinks that if a style like ours that uses en dashes is in a minority, then it is an error. That's crazy talk. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That goes above in support, if you are not opposed. Apteva (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An extensive check has been performed on common use of hyphens and endashes in proper nouns. There are a several types of proper nouns that are commonly hyphenated.

1. Names, such as Julia Louis-Dreyfus. These exclusively use hyphens.
2. Bird names, such as Red-winged Blackbird exclusively use hyphens.
3. Comets and
4. Airports exclusively use hyphens, by their naming authorities, the IAU, and the airport owner, as well as the FAA and other bodies.
5. Wars, such as the Mexican-American War use a hyphen by a 50:1 margin in books and other publications.
6. Bridges, such as the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge by a wide margin, are spelled with a hyphen.

The biggest problem is the conflict that extending endashes to proper nouns creates between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS, which is not addressed by adding a sentence to the MOS to not use WP:TITLE for titles. Following common usage does address that conflict, and removes the conflict. Apteva (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens are conveniently entered from the keyboard, and are a suitable substitute, other than for FA's and FAC's.

1. Apteva (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support hyphens to represent endashes: Again, for browser/keyboard wp:Accessibility issues, I support the treatment of hyphens as endashes, such as having a hyphenated redirect title for an endash title: "The Hyphen-/–Endash Battle" matching with 2 hyphens "-/-". Also, when page-number ranges contain hyphens, then they could be left in text as equivalent to ranges with dashes. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But hyphen redirects are already standard practice, which is why we don't have any relevant accessibility problem at issue here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about titles. This is about writing 1312-27, and it being acceptable to leave as close enough. From below it seems that almost no one cares. Apteva (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been acceptable to leave it. But when someone cares enough to fix it, that's even better. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support editorial discretion, oppose MOS-based bullying and drive-by vandalism by obsessive-compulsive perfectionists. Carrite (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hyphens are not the same as dashes, and they should not be treated as such. Using the correct punctuation is vital in a proper encyclopedia. David1217 ^{What I've done} 02:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. This proposal is borderline disruptive. —Wasell^(T) 09:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   This proposal is based on the wise advice that consistency within an article is more important than consistency between articles. For example, New Hart's Rules advises to consider leaving alone a consistent style that differs from your own. Apteva (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Any hyphen substitutions that can be improved by replacement with endashes, emdashes, or minus signs should be, even outside of FA's and FAC's. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although it is perfectly acceptable for any editor to use a hyphen instead of an en dash, it's not OK to undo the work of editors that then make improvements by correcting those to en dash where the en dash usage is in accord with MOS:DASH. This has always been the way the MOS works; nobody needs to know it, follow it, or care about it, but they should not fight those who do. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is pointed out, consistency within articles and subject groups is more important than consistency across Wikipedia. If there is one hyphen that should be an endash, it is proposed that it simply be left until the article reaches FA or FAC status, as edits are expensive, and there are far more important things to fix in GA articles than adding three pixels to the length of a hyphen. If a page has 19 hyphens that should be endashes and one that is an endash, or one that is a hyphen that should be an endash and 19 that should endashes and are endashes, it is better to make them all the same than which choice is made - either all twenty hyphens and all twenty endashes are acceptable, whichever the editor fixing the page chooses. Apteva (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also change dashes to commas or parentheses: I would also note that endashes or emdashes could be changed, depending on context, into sets of parentheses or commas—except in direct quotations—provided the change in punctuation does not alter the meaning of the phrase. Especially, the format style to precede an endash with a non-breaking space, as " –" could be substituted as a comma, to reduce confusion in the formatting of the text. In many cases, an endash has been written into a text phrase, without the appropriate non-breaking space connecting the endash to the preceding text, and so replacement with a comma might be simpler or clearer than the logistics needed to maintain the use of endashes, preceded by non-breaking spaces, in that text. In general, dashes are very tedious to edit, maintain, and verify, due to a lack of keyboard dash characters, and some browsers which display endashes as hyphens on the browser screen. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More forum shopping? You still aren't hearing it, are you? Powers ^T 02:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh. I was asked to post this here. Apteva (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there's a deceased equine and a bloody cudgel that need to both be put to rest here. --Jayron32 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The context of this proposal is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apteva and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva. I don't think the topic has anything to do with policy, and opening it here in the face of these proceedings is pointy and disruptive. I'm not sure where the "I was asked to post this here" comes from – possibly hallucinated? Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. I asked, this was the answer. So here it is. I would like to see the opinions on at least 50-60 editors on this issue. Not just the half dozen who I know are going to oppose it and try to stifle any discussion on the issue too. Apteva (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, JHunterJ pointed Apteva here to get broader discussion; however there is beating a dead horse issue going on here as well (give what appears to be a number of times the editor has been told that consensus favors the house style instead of what Apteva proposes here). --MASEM (t) 06:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you won't tell us who asked you to post here, with a link maybe, to dispel the impression that you hallucinated it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. AGF, though, applies. Here is what I would like to see - out of 50 to 60 editors, how many agree or disagree with the above. Is that an unreasonable request? Apteva (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've just about exhausted any reasonable assumption of good faith. JHunterJ, in addition to pointing you here, also explicitly said "Let the RFC/U and AN/I finish." You did neither, instead rushing to yet another forum to shop your wares. Powers ^T 13:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had that been the intent, it would have been far better to use English that made that clear. I do not see that was the intent. I was not asking what should I do after the RFC and ANI close, I was asking what should I do now? To put it into context. JH had closed an RM that I had opened. SOP if someone closes an RM, there are two recourses, one open an MRV, but MRV specifically asks to ask the closing admin first. Hence the dialog at JH's talk page. I need to remind everyone that I have a content question. RFC/U and ANI are only about conduct, not about content. If I am wrong about the content, a simple no will suffice. As I see it there is only name calling, which is never the way to resolve content disputes. See WP:FOC. Apteva (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Too late to stop this thread even if harrassed by other editors: Because the dash/hyphen issue affects multiple guidelines (wp:MOS) and policies (wp:TITLE), then here is the proper venue to discuss system-wide policy implications. Trying to censor discussion now, would be like inviting reporters to a major exposé and advising them all to leave now, because someone was accused of revealing too much truth. There's no stopping this discussion, at this point, since many editors have dealt with copy-editing to force dashes everywhere, and assess the burden of extra labor that it entails. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can speak for the majority of editors who neither know nor care about the distinction between hyphens and dashes... the only "rule" should be:

• "If you are not sure whether to use a hyphen or a dash when writing an article, don't worry about it; Another editor will come along later and fix any punctuation mistakes you make."

That really says it all. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. But how many would like to see airports spelled the way airports are spelled, comets the way comets are spelled, and Mexican-American War spelled the way most people spell it - with a hyphen? Mexican-American War has been moved back and forth from a hyphen to an endash about a half a dozen times each way. [Actually 94% of books use Mexican War, though.] The correct procedure to follow, if there is likely to be a dispute, is to open an RM. It does not help to make side remarks about being disruptive. It is never disruptive to suggest an improvement. If it is in fact not an improvement, there will likely be less support than if it is. Find out. Edison would never have invented the light bulb if after 100, 200, or 800 times said, well, this has been tried, there is no use in trying again.[8] Apteva (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that most people "spell" those as "two words with a short horizontal line between them" and don't really think about it much beyond that point. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is disruptive however to try to open discussion for a possible improvement when previous recent attempts have failed, which is what the issue is here (that's pretty much WP:DEADHORSE). The reason there is an RFC/U and a ANI against you is because you don't seem to have gotten the message that this has been discussed and consensus shows that change is not likely going to happen any time soon, particularly if you are using the same set of arguments for proposing the change. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False or invalid consensus to use dashes: The point which some seem to miss is that a "wp:local consensus" to force use of dashes cannot override a broad consensus which favors policy wp:COMMONNAME to name hyphenated words with hyphens, not some other dash character (nor replace commas with semicolons to add 3-4 pixels more). The so-called "consensus" to put dashes into hyphenated common names is invalid, per wp:CONSENSUS. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the analogy of Edison and the light bulb. I do not care how many times someone proposes that Kiev be moved to Kyiv or any other dispute, and no one else should either. But to ask someone to not ask the question is inappropriate. The fact is that out of 3,000 active editors probably less than a dozen have expressed an opinion on hyphens and endashes, yet everyone uses them, and is affected. A wider discussion is clearly warranted. I am asking for 50 or 60 responses here. That to me would be more representative. We get 100 votes on RfA's, surely we can get half that. Apteva (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that most Wikipedians probably don't know (or care about) the difference between a dash and a hyphen (and have never even heard the terms en-dash and an em-dash)... expecting that many people to comment on the issue is unrealistic. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That said... here is my take on the issue: I simply ignore the MOS. I know there is (apparently) a distinction between dashes and hyphens, but I don't know or care what it is. As far as I am concerned they are interchangeable. I do know that one of them is right there at the top of my keyboard... so I use that key interchangeably for both. I leave it to anal Style Nazis other editors to correct me. Since I they both look essentially the same to me, I usually don't even notice the correction. All I ask is this: if we are talking about an article title, include a redirect so people like me can still search for and find the article by using the key that is at the top of my keyboard. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great approach except for the ignorant personal attack that was at least struck through, thanks for that. It the other approach of disruptively undoing the corrections and ignoring the consensus that's at issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care about that either. Since most of us can't tell the difference between dashes and hyphens, we are not particularly concerned by a slow edit war over such petty punctuation marks. We don't really find it all that disruptive for it to flip back and forth occasionally.

What is disruptive is all the argument about it. Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should also be in favor of ending Apteva's disruptions. -- JHunterJ (talk)

That depends on what you think the disruption is... I think his going on and on trying to correct the MOS is disruptive (and I urge him to stop). However, I do not think it is disruptive for him to quietly ignore the MOS (and change a hyphen to a dash or a dash to a hyphen, as he thinks best). Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have a MOS? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give people useful advice on their style questions... (not to lay out firm and fast rules that must be followed). Blueboar (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in ignoring the MOS. I think the MOS should give advice on how we can have consistent articles, but I do not think the MOS should be a guide to good writing. I would prefer that it stick to things like telling us how articles are laid out and and using sentence case instead of title case, for example. And not putting quotes around blockquotes. But when it comes to giving bad advice, like spelling airports and comets with an endash, now that is just absurd. It turns out that simply assuming that proper nouns are going to use a hyphen instead of an endash will keep everyone out of trouble 100% of the time. Who knew it was that simple? Apteva (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may be occasional exceptions to the MOS, but someone "quietly ignoring the MOS and changing a hyphen to a dash or a dash to a hyphen, as he thinks best" can indeed be disruptive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you think of the MOS as "a set of rules" to be followed... if you think of it as advice it isn't disruptive to ignore that advice.

As for consensus... I strongly suspect that if you asked the broader wikipedia community beyond those who regularly edit the MOS page, you would find that the actual consensus on the use of hyphens vs dashes is... "it doesn't really matter". Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you think of the MOS as a manual of style guidelines, actually. Treating them as, well, what?, meaningless strings of words that every individual editor can ignore makes them meaningless. Strong suspicions don't make new consensuses. New consensus makes new consensus. Otherwise, I shall strongly suspect is that everyone always agrees with me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<---It is probably correct that most think that hyphens and dashes do not matter, and with only a three pixel difference it is pretty hard to see why anyone would want to make a correctly used hyphen an extra three pixels longer, turning it into an incorrectly used dash. IAR is a fundamental principle we apply to make the encyclopedia better. If someone thinks it improves the encyclopedia to spell things correctly, and the MOS says to spell it wrong, well then what does that suggest? Is it better to ignore the MOS or to change the MOS? IAR suggests the former, but commonsense suggests the latter. We use hyphens for most minus signs and no one complains, yet newspapers use endashes for minus signs, to distinguish them from hyphenation. Should someone from that walk of life use endashes where they think endashes go, and uses them consistently in an article, in my view it is better to leave them. Consistency within an article is far more important than consistency between articles. Apteva (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)ctua[reply]

Nit: Actually, MOS addicts do object to using a hyphen for a minus sign. Art LaPella (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the advice in the MOS about hyphens and dashes is more like should sentences end in a preposition? And most of it is technically correct, but some involves splitting hairs where they need not be split, for example, it is common in British publications to use a spaced endash – like this – but in American publications to use an emdash—like this—instead. Such distinctions do not need to be discussed. The only advice in the MOS that is really bad about hyphens and dashes is to use any dashes in proper nouns. The correct advice would be, in my opinion, to defer to common use, thus bringing the WP:MOS in line with WP:TITLE. Hyphens in titles, is of course a subject for TITLE, not MOS, but using hyphens everywhere instead of dashes is a subject for the MOS. Apteva (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this archive of the new dash guideline drafting process summary, which notes that "The voting page attracted contributions from 60 editors..." That's why there's not much appetite to put up with more months of discussion and disruption driven by one editor with a novel theory that nobody and no source supports. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of that discussion was about other issues. [and over a year ago] There is nothing wrong with either overturning or confirming decisions. My issue is very focused - using hyphens and endashes correctly, meaning that endashes are not used in proper nouns. And if it was such a novel theory, why would 98% of books use a hyphen? For example, a history book uses Mexican-American War (1846–1848). Clearly they are choosing which to use and where to use a hyphen, as they used a hyphen in Mexican-American War, and an endash for the dates.[9]Apteva (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that "endashes are not used in proper nouns" did not come up because it is not in any of the dozens of guides to English usage that were consulted. It is your own novel idiosyncratic theory, contradicted by many sources that use en dashes in places and organizations and such named after pairs of people (for example, Richmond–San Rafael Bridge, to name one that you've noted appears with en dash in nearly half of book sources). Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most style guides, including ours (until it was changed recently), simply say things like hyphenation is also used in proper nouns. We went over Richmond-San Rafael Bridge extensively. If you look at the first ten there are almost half and half, but when you look at the first hundred or so, endash fails miserably. See Talk:Richmond–San Rafael Bridge#Requested move. Apteva (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not characterize 25.7% as "nearly half". Apteva (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that 25.7% of sources and WP are in error, because they're in a minority. That's really just a rejection of the idea that WP can have a style like many of these other sources have, not proof that proper names must use hyphens. That pigheaded approach of yours has received zero support from other editors. Why can't you stop pushing it so disruptively? Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Wikipedia chooses the spelling used most often for article titles. Saying nearly half when the actual number is not even 25.7% (that is a number that is rounded up) is inaccurate and not helpful in deciding which is the majority, and therefore which we should be using. Wikipedia is not like other sources, because it has a higher standard than other sources. Wikipedia would like to be the standard that everyone else goes to for correct and accurate information - that is in a nutshell the definition of an encyclopedia. Picking a style that is used 2% of the time, as in Mexican-American War, and even calling it that, when 94% of books use "Mexican War" instead, is not appropriate. So what is 2% of 6%? That is how many books spell Mexican War the way we do. Disruptively? No. The word disruptive does apply, though, to editors who insist on using dashes where hyphens are more appropriate, and who attempt to stifle conversation to correct this issue, and who use words like disruptive to do so. Apteva (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva, I'm going to strongly suggest that 1) you read through WP:LAME to understand that you're talking about a trivial issue that is detracting from the actual editing of articles that we should be doing, and 2) recognizing that most of our readership is not going to recognize the different between a title using an endash and a title using a hyphen or consider that using one or the other is "wrong", and that it is only for internal consistent and house style that we picked one and stuck with it across titles and prose. Continuing to push the issue without any change of argument is likely going to get you restricted or blocked for a period of time since it is clear consensus has been recently established on the issue. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but obviously there is a right and a wrong way to suggest change. To not suggest change is worse. I see that the essay ends with the advice "people that care about the distinction between the different flavors of short horizontal lines should feel free to argue about it and generate WP:MOS pages about the topic, so long as they only involve other people that also care about the different flavors of short horizontal lines." The problem is that they had a huddle about dashes, got some of it right and some of it wrong, and then went out into article space thinking that it was up to them to fix every hyphen and dash themself, instead of trusting others to use their own common sense in applying or not applying what they had written. Apteva (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest change - just not the 3, 4, or whatever number of times that I'm guessing from the past history that you've made in relatively rapid-fire suggestion, particularly when the consensus seems to be immovable towards that change. That's called tenacious editing, and that appears to be why there's the RFC/U and ANI threads open on you. It is suggested you let the point rest for some time (months? I don't know exactly how long) as well as to find other arguments that may be more convincing to that change, and then propose it. Otherwise, your proposal is going to fall on deaf ears no matter how loud you try to make the point. You may be annoyed about the endash/hyphen issue, but, again, most readers care less as long as they type what they want in the search bar and get to an article that talks about what they searched for. It's likely worrying about a 10 cent overcharge on a $1000 bill. There's the principle of the thing, yes, but in the long run does it matter? --MASEM (t) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick: tendentious. :) — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even pickier. I was tenacious, others thought I was tendentious. Tendentious only applies if "it does not conform to the neutral point of view" or "tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions". None of which apply.^[disputed] (others may disagree) Apteva (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Apteva: Wikipedia requires a good community to build the encyclopedia. Vandals and incompetent editors are easily handled—what destroys a community is endless bickering. Let's say the previous discussions were all wrong, and the conclusions are invalid. It is still the case that the horse has been sufficiently beaten, and the matter must be dropped. I do care about typography, but obviously the appropriate length of a horizontal line boils down to a matter of opinion—further arguing the point would be disruptive. Try again in 12 months. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Or since this is year end, in 2014. But if it goes through this go around I will not have to bring it up again. Right now the issue that matters is 1/1, with the oppose vote of questioned validity. Apteva (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva, have you considered what will happen if one of the people who oppose your viewpoint is as passionate as you are? Are we as a community supposed to suffer literally endless debates over the size of a dash because one or more editors can't shut up? Far worse than getting stuck with the "wrong" version of MOS is an editor with the attitude that he should keep arguing until he gets his way, no matter what. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great theory, but in practice it is worse to "not raise your hand" when someone has a question, or to "sit on your hands" when someone sees an error. I would guess that 99% of wikipedia readers either trust what they see or feel powerless to correct errors they see, even if they know they are looking at an error. It is obvious from the below that 99% of wikipedians think this is one of the lamest issues ever. If there is anyone that is passionate about anything, they do not make a very good wikipedia editor for that subject, and are advised to stick to subjects that they are less passionate about. Endashes and hyphens are not a subject that I am passionate about. They are a subject that I am knowledgeable about. Apteva (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring edit that was censored from the above discussion:

• I can't believe there are actually 60 people who give a flying fuck about this non-issue.... Wait, should I have used a different small horizontal line in "non-issue"? Am I in trouble now? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self appointed civility police, please do not remove this again. You may not like hearing from those of us who think such discussions are an epic waste of time, but trust me, there are more of us than there are of you and it is not appropriate to summarily remove comments from a discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'tis astonishing, isn't it? I really can't believe the amount of discussion squandered over a difference that I usually can't even detect unless someone points it out.—Kww(talk) 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Within just a few days of discussing this hyphen/endash topic, by 5 December 2012 it became obvious there are some clear issues which have emerged to show rough consensus:

• The endash is considered definitely different than a hyphen character, especially in distinction with computer devices which key-in or match one or the other but not both characters.
• The hyphen is widely supported on keyboards, while the endash character is a very rare key on computer devices, confirming wp:Accessibility problems for endashes.
• Many users do not think the choice between a hyphen and an endash is a significant issue for Wikipedia to debate, nor to stipulate.

Consequently, there is no consensus to favor the use of endash over the historical use of hyphens, or vice versa, and so I would conclude that Wikipedia should neutrally allow using either an endash or hyphen except where other policies favor a choice, such as in wp:TITLE (wp:COMMONNAME) to use the most-common spelling of a name, and in wp:ACCESS to allow access to Wikipedia functionality in typing or searching for data.

Implications from emerging consensus: There are several issues which directly relate to the decisions from the emerging consensus noted above. The related issues include:

• Wikipedia should not establish a house style (in wp:MOS) that recommends endashes over hyphens (nor vice versa) because too many editors do not support the distinction as being significant for Wikipedia.
• With no house style to favor endashes, then page-number ranges could use either hyphens or endashes, with no need to edit an article to force either character.
• With no house style to favor endashes, then day/date ranges could use either hyphens or endashes, with no need to edit an article to force either character.
• With no clear consensus to favor endashes, then no policy statement should specify a specific choice of hyphen/dash to override other policy reasons for choosing which to use.

As a consequence of those related issues (listed immediately above), then editing of pages would be simplified by not changing hyphens/endashes unless directed by policy statements, not as a style issue. There would be no need to put "&ndash;" where a prior editor had written hyphen "-" or double-hyphen "--" in the text of an article. Note well that the above implications directly follow from the fact of numerous editors stating that the choice between hyphen/endash is insignificant for Wikipedia as a style-related issue. However, if the emerging consensus were to change greatly, and a supramajority of editors recant their opinions to instead, later, strongly favor the use of endashes rather than hyphens, then the above implications or conclusions would no longer be valid, and style guides could favor endashes as the widely preferred style of short horizontal lines, which is clearly not the case, at this time in December 2012. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that there is no consensus to change the current guidelines, and that all responses to the things that you find "clear" will be ignored in favor of your conclusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you could gain consensus for an even simpler proposal: forbid the use of en-dashes within Wikipedia at all, and commissioning a bot to remove all existing occurences. I can't remember a pettier or more insignificant squabble than this. The difference is essentially invisible, and using both does nothing more than force the existence of redirects to compensate for the simple fact that people can't type en-dashes.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you claim an inability to detect the difference doesn't mean there isn't one, or that the difference is insignificant. The difference between a comma and a period, or a minus sign and a division sign, is equally small but I'm sure you can agree the meanings are quite different. Using the correct punctuation enhances understanding and reduces confusion for readers -- even those readers who are not consciously aware of the difference. It's good typographical practice and has been for centuries. Powers ^T 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comparison would indicate to me that you have no appreciation for the truly infinitesimal difference we are discussing. Nobody has continuous edit wars and discussions about the difference between a minus sign and a division sign because their purpose, usage, and appearance is clearly different. We've muddled along for years with keyboards that couldn't distinguish these different short horizontal lines because the vast majority of population doesn't find the distinction interesting. To load the encyclopedia down with a redirect structure to jump back and forth between two different punctuation marks that aren't appreciably different in order to satisfy a desire to be typologically correct is creating a problem that doesn't exist. Far easier to simply forbid the use of the en-dash. We could probably even get Wikimedia software modified to treat and render the two characters identically to prevent anyone from trying to cheat.—Kww(talk) 18:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be easier to pretend that the endash doesn't exist. It would be wrong, but it would be easier. It would also be easier to pretend Unikode doesn't eksist. I'm pretty sure we kan get by without q, x, j, and c as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have any logic to bring to the discussion, or just comedy?—Kww(talk) 18:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw come on, he has a point, although I disagree with it. The word "wrong" implies grammar books are something like scripture. A more utilitarian answer is that using "k" for "c" would slow down comprehension by about a percent. Using a hyphen for a dash would slow down comprehension by a much smaller fraction, and only for the fraction of a percent of our readers who know the difference. Once we write several paragraphs on the subject, it would have been more efficient to do whatever gets us back to something real again. Art LaPella (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When he can demonstrate that the vast majority of keyboards manufactured for decades have been missing the q, x, j, and c keys, he'll have a point. Until then, he's simply conflating two completely different issues for comedic effect.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't re-engineer grammar, and to argue a ban on a punctuation mark is crass. Just because a number of people don't appreciate the difference, does not mean we should just pretend it's "truly infinitesimal". There are small differences between other points of grammar, and spelling as well – we're not dumbing down to suit those who don't care enough to learn those differences. If a grammar point causes a big fuss like this, deal with the fuss, don't warp the grammar. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pretending it's truly infinitesimal, it is truly infinitesimal. Hence the discrepancies all over reliable sources as to which ones to use in which cases and the lack of distinction in keyboards.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, there is a significant difference between a hyphen and an endash. Keyboards don't do a lot of things – that's no indicator of grammatical importance, merely frequency. What is truly infinitesimal though is the merit in your argument to ban endashes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboards don't have °, ¢, or ∞ either. Keyboards don't even have italics. But we keep using them in Wikipedia because it's supposed to be laid out like a "real" encyclopedia, not a typewritten galley proof of an encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I find it sad that anyone would devote so much energy to arguing on and on and on about such a point, failing to realize that the people involved in the dispute at literally the only ones that care or will even notice the difference. Once you have decided how many en dashes can dance on the head of a pin be sure and let us know... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder when it became fashionable to go to the effort of declaring a lack of interest in something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When an utterly insignificant issue is making a sprawling mess at on of our major forums for discussing policy you can expect people to point out that this is a silly, pointless dispute that you all are taking way too seriously. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking generally. why should some people's ruling of what is insignificant, silly and pointless have any bearing on what others want to do on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Maybe I missed the diktat. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone thinks the dash-style decisions among the above-cited 60-editor voting (June 2011) was, somehow, reflecting the world-at-large use of dashes, I will note the following strong objection to one aspect of pro-dash usage in ratios:

Proposal: use en dash in ratios ("Male–Female ratio")

Reaction: Very strongly oppose. No actual usage outside some obscure style guide has been given; most style guides do not recommend this. Looking at a random sample of actual English suggests strongly that this is also the wrong example; the old-fashioned (male:female) and modern (male/female) symbols for a ratio are both more common than dashes; hyphens are more common than all three put together. If those who support this want permission to do this, I am still willing to accord it. (posted in mid-2011 by Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 June 2011)

The stipulation to use dashes in ratios was favored, even though directly in conflict with the world-at-large (and many style guides), which use hyphens ("male-female") more than the less-common colon ("male:female"), or slash ("male/female"), or endashed forms combined. The result was a style-guide rule which pushes the least-common ratio format (endash), as being preferred, and definitely a pro-dash stance above all other forms. That was the result of the 60-editor voting process, which pushed the use of endashes in ratios, above 3 other more-common formats. I am reminded of the adage, "If the only tool avaliable is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail". Perhaps if a style-guide document had been focused on "Hyphen/dash usage" (rather than "wp:DASH"), then worldwide use of hyphens, far more than dashes, would have been advised. Consider the outcome of an election which has only one candidate on the ballot, as an analogy when making choices. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: Wikipedia 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.

Since the few people who actually have a strong opinion on this are clearly unable to resolve it themselves and the rest of the community doesn't really care, I propose a one-year moratorium on debates regarding en dashes, hyphens, and any other small horizontal lines. This would also cover editing in article titles or content to make them have the users preferred small horizontal line or editing the MOS or any other page related to the use of small horizontal lines, construed as broadly as possible. Any user found to be in violation of the moratorium will first be warned about it, just once, and then be subject to blocking, with repeat offenses leading to severely increased block lengths, up to and including blocking for the entire remainder of said moratorium.

• Support as proposer. Looking at the massive discussion above it is clear that this minor issue is a major time sink and a distraction from actual useful work. The vast majority of our readers do not know or care what the difference is between these small horizontal lines so the benefit to using one or the other is obscure at best. The involved parties are clearly never going to stop unless they are made to. So let's just agree that the sane thing to do is to put a stop to these endless, pointless arguments about small horizontal lines. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A ban on editing hyphens and endashes in article content would be impossible to enforce. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for violators will give those of you who actually care something to do during the next year. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to bash people for grammar errors, I just correct them. I had never even seen an argument about hyphens and endashes until I saw this one. Does this proposal constitute a ban on correcting grammar where there is no debate? For example correcting Coca_Cola to Coca-Cola? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would cover any demonstrable pattern of editing that involved changing small horizontal lines. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAME#Mexican-American_War_vs_Mexican.E2.80.93American_War comes immediately to mind.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So just ban hyphen and endashes changes in that article and any similar ones, why use a sledgehammer to crack what is apparently a very small nut? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Absent an Arbcom case, and then only at point, there appears to be no mechanism to get people to mediate these things that most people do not care about. As seems often the case, they just go on talking past each other ('it's a style issue, no it's a content issue, no it's a style issue, no, it's a content issue, etc.') (here's some thoughts to consider, maybe sometimes its both, or one or the other depending on context). Perhaps, the rest of us should let them go on and then make them go to Arbitration at the next available moment. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Too vague and ill-thought out. Potentially blocking people for correcting grammar errors is not sustainable. Banning debate because some people don't care about the topic is dictatorial and censorious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; we do not go imposing moratoria because one person insists on continuing to find ways around consensus. Powers ^T 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know about the moratorium and strict block escalations, though I would like to see someone put an end to this. What about sending it to the Arbitration Committee to punish the committee give it one last chance at a resolution? Monty₈₄₅ 20:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a reasonable step if the community can't come to some kind of resolution.—Kww(talk) 20:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you mean the mediation committee? Arbcom doesn't handle content disputes... Legoktm (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "shouldn't" would be more accurate. In this case, it really isn't a content dispute, it's a behavioural issue. Arbcom couldn't reasonably state a preference for one over the other, but it could demand that people stop arguing about it, changing articles in response to perceived incorrectness of one over the other, or renaming articles from one variant to another.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Arbcom shouldn't decide the underlying content dispute, but may put an end, however temporary, to the endless fighting about it. Monty₈₄₅ 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Legoktm (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a Modest Proposal for an amendment: anyone who is blocked for violating the moratorium should remain blocked until they are able to determine, to the satisfaction of qualified independent reviewers, the precise number of molecules per pixel in their computer's display. Completion of that exercise undoubtedly would be more valuable to society than continued discussion of small horizontal lines. And, yes, this is dictatorial and censorious. We are a voluntary community and are entitled to be as dictatorial and censorious as we wish, if we form a consensus to do so. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if people could at least differentiate between cases where there is debate over which punctuation mark to use (like the Mexican-American War issue), and cases where there is no debate. There is a potential for advocating blocks for editors who regularly make simple, uncontested grammar corrections, and I am assuming nobody wants to see that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One assumes that is why it was a Modest Proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully support a moratorium on argument... but I would not support a moratorium on editing. Instead, I would suggest a strict one-revert rule (this would allow editors may change hyphens to dashes, or dashes to hyphens as they think correct in a given situation... but if reverted, he/she would not be allowed to undo the revert). Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Oppose If editors are being disruptive in the hyphen/dash debate, then block them, topic ban them, or give them a 1RR sanction. Put in discretionary sanctions for all discussions on hyphens and dashes, if you must. But don't do a blanket ban on all hyphen and dash discussion. David1217 ^{What I've done} 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal. There is a current RfC at Wikipedia Talk:MOS#Three corrections. That will per this proposal, terminate at the end of 2012, and there will be no discussion of small horizontal lines during 2013, no deliberate changing of any to another, and no proposed article name changes from one short horizontal line to another during 2013. A subpage for registering requests, without discussion, will be made available. They will not without arbcom permission be acted upon until 2014. Apteva (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose moratorium on hyphen/dash discussions: I think the continued discussion of the long-term, worldwide use of hyphens, versus the relatively limited use of endashes, will continue to reveal a broader consensus where many editors do not see the need to force endashes, nor hyphens, into article text. Likewise, usage of hyphens/dashes, such as in titles, should reflect mainstream use (hence, wp:COMMONNAME whenever hyphens or endashes are most-used in the preponderance of wp:RS reliable sources). For example, there is no significant advantage to change a ratio phrase "male/female" to use endash "male–female". Further discussion should proceed to investigate how an arbitrated discussion, of endash usage (re wp:DASH), led to a local consensus which advocated the use of endashes in titles contrary to the common-usage (contrary to policy wp:COMMONNAME). Also, discussion should proceed to quantify, where practical, the extra overhead, during the prior 2 years, needed to rename page titles, or force endashes into article text, rather than let hyphens be used as an equivalent format (with no need to re-edit to insert endashes). There is also the option to allow the most-common use, of either hyphens or endashes, in an article's list sections to determine the changing of less-common into the more-common format. I think the push to use endashes, to replace hyphens, is an extreme case of instruction creep, which has led to counter-productive rules of text formatting. However, by continuing to discuss all of those issues, during the coming months, then the discussions can demonstrate that Wikipedia is willing to question prior cases of assumed consensus, to better reflect the broader consensus of the community. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First and only suggestion I have seen in relation to this risible topic that makes sense. My only caveat is that the sanctions are not draconian enough. : D Ben MacDui 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I don't care what flavor of short horizontal line people use. I do care that the endless arguments over it are disruptive. -–—Carnildo (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a RFC regarding allowing bureaucrats to remove the bureaucrat bit, and regarding the regranting of the bureaucrat bit (to bring it into line with the recently-passed policies for administrators). Please see Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#2012 bureaucrats RFC. --Rschen7754 01:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... on Jimbo's talk page. (Note that there was an announcement of another major Amazon investment in Wikia on 30 November 2012.) Andreas JN466 07:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is prompting me to start this policy discussion is an AfD over an article I just created, and the ongoing debate that I am having with the AfD proposer and myself. I also want to state here "for the record" that I am not trying to do forum shopping, and I expect that AfD will be evaluated and be dealt with as per policy and by intelligent people dealing with the situation in due course.

The issue I have is that the AfD proposer basically suggested that almost any article that is created on Wikipedia should be started in the User namespace until it is polished and "ready for prime time". I think that is not only a silly argument, but it is also contrary to established policy. That for some people new to Wikipedia it might be useful to have some mentors who can guide you through the process of creating a new Wikipedia article, I believe the AfC process can and ought to be an optional system, not something mandatory.

I'll also note that for 100% of the articles that I've started over the past 3-4 years, each and every one of them has been slapped with an AfD (most of them even PROD'd for a speedy delete). I have also had a 100% survival rate for all of those articles where the nomination for deletion was overturned and kept. That is a waste of not only my time but the admins and others who are participating in the AfD process. I don't start these articles until I know there are sufficient sources and otherwise I think they actually merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

All I'm asking is for a little bit of breathing room when starting a new article.... so I can actually put in the references I've found and to actually write the article. I don't think this should be happening in my user space, but if that is what the consensus of those who participate here on Wikipedia want... I'm willing to go through the steps to make that formal policy so that anything added to the main namespace which doesn't fit a B class article or better should be speedy deleted or userfied. That seems to be the standard I'm seeing here too. I'm not trying to be disruptive here, but should article creation in the main namespace be a thing of the past? --Robert Horning (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that the article Golden Spike Company be pointed out, because that's the biggest thing here: it is, pretty much, WP:CRYSTAL until Dec. 6th, especially as the article talks about rumors and speculation of what the Dec 6 announcement may be. It's nothing about being ready for prime time, it is about putting in information of limited verifyability prematurely. If the rumors are true and the announcement as set for the 6th goes through, I'm sure it will be fine and notable and no problems for retention, but this is a case that I personally would have developed the article in user space and only moved to main once details were confirmed on the 6th.

In any other case, about established companies or facts that CRYSTAL doesn't apply, you're absolutely right that someone slapping an AFD immediately on a mainspace article that is still undergoing development is assuming bad faith. But this is not the same case. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this particular article, I was a little bit hesitant at writing the article until I noticed that there were some pretty big names that were coming out in terms of writing articles about this company and that perhaps there were already enough reliable sources with enough information to create a stub of an article.

I feel that such a discussion could certainly have happened on the talk page first, rather than trying to turn it into an AfD discussion. Being much more friendly and assuming good faith, the suggestion to userfy until December 6th could have even been a good one. That wasn't done, and indeed I don't think an attempt to even read the article references was even done. The assumption was that such an article simply shouldn't exist period and even suggesting that the press conference was a total lark that wouldn't ever happen. I have some "inside knowledge" about this company (no COI here... I just know some people who know some people) that this company is going to be a big deal... so I am also trying to get an early start on the article before the big rush of editors comes. I expect even that by Friday this particular article is going to need semi or full protection from editing. In other words, the AfD is going to be a huge bitch slap on the face of Wikipedia by dozens of news organizations and casual readers saying WTF about the AfD.

Regardless, this isn't the first time I've encountered this situation, and it seems to be a precedent on Wikipedia. The knee jerk reaction to delete anything that isn't a B-class article or better is what I'm complaining about here. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regarding the statement " any article that is created on Wikipedia should be started in the User namespace until it is polished and "ready for prime time"." That is patently false. We encourage new and inexperienced users to avoid creating articles in the main space because it causes them to become very frustrated and hate Wikipedia. Since we don't want people to hate Wikipedia, we steer new users to use their user space to create "drafts" or use the optional WP:AFC review process. Both of these are fully optional. Indeed, to this day the vast majority of new articles are created straight up as articles in the main space. There's no policy, guideline, or anything else that says it shouldn't be so. However, all main space articles must be main space ready. If, as you say, you want "little bit of breathing room when starting a new article", then you should create it in your user space. Every article which is in the main space should meet the minimum standards. There's absolutely no requirement to create a userspace draft, but there is no special treatment given to any article in the main article space regarding who created it or how new it is. --Jayron32 23:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By breathing room, I was implying that I needed a chance to actually enter the sources I was using for the information I was adding. That I was trying to build the article a little bit at a time.... write a little, save a little, write a little more. This is called article development. There is no reason why main space articles must appear in full form like Venus coming out of the sea with all of the references and sections fully filled out.

I understand the problems that new page patrolers do encounter so far as random garbage and gibberish being added, and that sometimes there is a desire to try and create articles for a neighborhood pet shop or their elementary school principal. Some care should be taken to beat up new users even in that situation though, where some sort of human interaction should be taking place rather than using automated tools that make it seem like some robot doesn't like you.

The breathing room I'm looking for is to actually write the article in the first place and actually put in some content. What I am seeing is the death of stubs as articles, that stubs can no longer be seriously considered for new article. I am also asking what those "minimum standards" really ought to be for new articles added to the main namespace? Should they include at least 3-4 reliable sources? Should they be multiple paragraphs long? Do they need to be formatted like a Wikipedia article with lots of hyperlinks and have many links to the article as well? What exactly are those "minimum standards" that should be met? I am seeing the standard so high here that it appears to me that the article should be a B-class article. Perhaps some flaws and things that need to be fixed, but still in pretty good shape. If I'm mistaken on this notion, please enlighten me! --Robert Horning (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. There is no requirement to create first in user space. What I do suggest is that the more references that an article has, the less likely it is to be proposed for deletion. So for new articles, having 3 or 4 references including at least one from a newspaper goes a long way to preventing calls for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest focusing on improving the article instead of spending time trying to defend it, but it looks like it will be a keeper. If every article created by someone is being nominated for afd, it is true that creating them in user space is possible, but so also is simply creating them in notepad or a text editor, and then putting them onto the web when they are more developed. Some of the articles I have created, I just created a stub because they were clearly notable, others I have flushed out more before making them available. If it takes a lot of edits to create a flushed out article, they can all be made using preview instead of save, but there is a serious warning - computers crash and all of your edits can be lost if they are not saved or saved locally. I know because it has happened to me. Apteva (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to point out that it is a huge time waster to deal with an AfD instead of doing just as you have suggested... to simply work on the article and improve the content. An article that has been languishing for a couple of weeks without any subsequent edits or for an article that you do a quick Google search and can't find reliable soruces and sort of 'smells' like it won't possibly have any reliable sources to back it up.... I'd agree that there are some articles that do need to be quickly deleted as there is no possible hope that they will ever become a viable article for Wikipedia.

I do strongly disagree that you need to take your editing elsewhere first though. That gets back to my original point that there is a general sentiment among especially those who are regularly performing new page patrols that articles need to be completely flushed out and be at a B-class (more or less... perhaps start class) level of organization out of the first edit if that is done in the main article namespace. That is precisely the advise I'm being given here, and that is the advise that was given on the AfD. I think that is utterly absurd. As a matter of fact, when I see a huge edit of that nature as the first edit, I tend to think that some sort of copyright violation has taken place and very likely has.

The other issue, something raised in the above mentioned AfD, is that people who patrol new pages and consistently nominate AfDs for articles that likely don't need them rarely suffer any negative consequences. They run roughshod over a whole bunch of editors... some very experienced and can fight back as I have, and others who are brand new and are just trying to figure out Wikipedia for the first time. Contrary to what was said above, your experience on Wikipedia does matter in these situations where somebody new simply gives up and no longer edits the project. I know because I've interacted with those disgruntled former editors who couldn't figure out how to "game the system" to get their edits to stick. This is a very serious meta issue that does need to be addressed and what I'm seeing here is a lack of concern about what is happening to those who don't know how to fight back and make the proper arguments in places like AfD discussions.

I also think it is reasonable to wait a little bit for articles that are somewhat questionable but may have some potential. You shouldn't slap that AfD warning notice on an article in less than five minutes after the first edit, or in the case of the Golden Spike Company article it was just 20 minutes after the first edit. I had even made several edits after that first edit to show I was making continued progress on the article. I can't believe that nobody sees that as a concern and a problem. --Robert Horning (talk)

For certain there's a TROUT to Hell in a Basket here for nominating it so quickly after creation; I'm assuming that came out of NPP. There, those editors do need to use caution and look at edit time stamps: if as you said it was in 20 minutes of creation and you had at least one or two interviening edits, it was far too soon to slap a tag (it was certainly not going to go to a CSD). That's just bad judgement. However, say you did all the work you did on the article in a two hour block, and then didn't touch it for several hours; at that point, it is reasonable to assume that the 2hr version is as much as you can complete, and the worthiness of the article to be kept or not will be judged on that version. Because this falls into CRYSTAL territory, there is a strong chance it would be deleted. This is just a lesson learned for next time - if you know that CRYSTAL is going to come into play but will resolved "shortly", make the article in userspace, and then move to mainspace once CRYSTAL no longer applies (her in the case of Golden Spike, that could likely happen on Friday). Just remember that no one owns any content in mainspace, and it will be judged. We hope those judging use common sense on time it takes to edit articles but if you have any doubt, make it in userspace until you are sure that doubt is gone. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat, I am not trying to make this discussion about that particular article. I am trying to say that this is a consistent pattern for 100% of all articles I have ever tried to start on Wikipedia in the past several years. It is an issue where I don't think any article could possibly reach any possible standard of quality of any kind and that there are a whole bunch of people patrolling new articles that simply act to prevent any new articles from appearing. Just as seen by the above discussion, there seems to be consensus that articles can't be created in the main namespace any more. Creating an article in the main namespace implies that you edit a little, pause a little, research a little, actually use bathroom facilities once in awhile, and make a few mistakes along the way. In other words you are human. These are simply inhuman standards that need to be met where the article must be completely fleshed out and ready for an article review. In other words it must meet B-class standards in order for the article to remain. I don't even understand why a two hour break is necessarily a bad thing or why that kind of criteria must be met. A 24 hour period... perhaps. Certainly if it hasn't been edited for a week I might start to agree.

Had this particular reviewer said "look, I know you mean well and this is an interesting company, let's move this to your user space until December 6th".... I might have even agreed. There certainly were other options available. There is this really cool button that any long-time editor on Wikipedia can use, which is the page move tool. It is just as easy to move a page from the main article space into user space as it is to move it back. Instead all I got here was confrontation and being told I was an idiot and somebody not worthy of editing Wikipedia. I resent that and find that incredibly offensive. This kind of behavior is driving editors from Wikipedia and is a part of a much larger issue that needs to be addressed. It is the view that new articles are something to be destroyed and an utter contempt for what may appear to be a new editor. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to creating a new article ("you edit a little, pause a little, research a little, actually use bathroom facilities once in awhile, and make a few mistakes along the way") would be fine if it wasn't an open wiki. As soon as the new page is created, it is open game for anyone to edit, review, etc. Obviously yes, we don't want pages sent to AFD the instant they are created, but at the same time, there's a lot of potential for abuse of the open wiki system here (including COI and the like). If your method of editing is like as you described, I would strongly recommend doing the bulk of that in userspace - which is not reviewed like mainspace - until you've gotten most of the initial edits out of your system. If I'm going to create an article directly in mainspace, I will already have all the refs I need to substantiate the article as a valid topic for WP - it obviously won't be complete but it won't trigger any CSD and should avoid any other content policies. I get it to that initial state (not too long if the sources are in front of me already) and then I can take time to expand it without fear of AFD. On the other hand, recently I had an article where I had sources coming in but wasn't sure to the article's appropriateness, so there I started the article in userspace. A few days later I had then enough sources to justify the article and put it to mainspace without a problem.

I'm not disagreeing that we need to give new articles a bit of time to develop, but considering your experience (I've not reviewed anything else you've made), this seems like a "fool me one, fool me twice" situation - if you've had articles tagged for deletion so shortly after creation in mainspace but would later be kept appropriately after more sources or confirmation came around, maybe you should be avoiding initial creation in mainspace. There is no deadline to get articles into the work, and better to avoid the hassle by using userspace for that purpose; the ease of moving an article makes this a no-brainer. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playing devils advocate here, but Robert, have you considered that it could be argued that it's actually you wasting the time of other editors (particularly new page patrollers) by creating articles in mainspace which aren't ready for it? It's those other editors who have to go through the formality of checking to see if sources are available, filing an AFD (a pain in the nethers if you don't have Twinkle enabled) and otherwise cleaning up what, by your own admission, could have been a fully-formed and clearly suitable article. If you present them with something that has been worked up to an appropriate level in userspace, has a smattering of clearly reliable sources, and doesn't require much in the way of copy-editing, then everyone's life is made easier - they don't have to go through a whole checklist of issues, and you don't have to contest an AFD. No-one is asking that you build an A-Class article in your sandbox before moving it to mainspace, but certain minimum standards apply to anything that we publish as a live article.

Even if you insist on doing all the creation in mainspace, you can still use the Show preview button to see what the article will look like without having to save it. Or you can create it in an offline text editor first. Basically, whilst no-one is forcing you to do all your page creation in userspace, it avoids headaches for all concerned if you do at least the basics there. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a border case on this issue. Still, why must articles be developed elsewhere first? That is the issue I'm complaining about here. I am asking what those minimum standards ought to be for any article that is in the main namespace? IMHO, a single sentence that accurately describes a person, business, concept, or idea (aka a real encyclopedia article and not just patent gibberish) is all that really should be that standard, or at least used to be the standard for Wikipedia. That is how most of the existing articles on Wikipedia were started when this project began. If you and others want to say that is no longer the case, that articles should start somewhere else other than the main article namespace, then come out and admit it. Don't give silly responses that some sort of minimal standard that you won't describe exists. I'm not saying A-class here, but it is being implied a B-class or at least Start-class level should be reached with several references and something of substance. I just don't understand why such standard is needed in the very first edit, especially when ongoing edits are happening in short succession? --Robert Horning (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" Still, why must articles be developed elsewhere first?" - Reverse question: why shouldn't they? It's easier, gives you less hassle, it just requires a single "move" step more, and you can edit them with (almost) all the time you want. I honestly don't understand why don't you accept an obvious good practice. That's what a userspace is for. I'm here since 2005 and I created a few articles, and my first saved draft usually always contains one or two references already: still I always do it in my own userspace until I feel it's a decent article.

Also, I would point that the very fact that you are having every article subject to deletion discussions should make you think that maybe it's you doing something suboptimal. And here's why: "I just don't understand why such standard is needed in the very first edit" : Because once your article is in mainspace, it is fair game for everyone to tag it, consider it for CSD, whatever. Yes, I totally agree that doing it after 20 minutes is poor form, but to introduce such a "waiting time" creates much more hassle for NPPs and everyone else than simply allowing you to work in userspace and moving the article. Why you refuse stubbornly to do that, I don't understand. --Cyclopia^talk 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow WP:V's mandate to base articles on independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and make sure that at each stage of development the article passes WP:V, you typically won't have any trouble. The problem comes when people try to start an article based on press releases or personal knowledge and then fill in the sources later.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some types of articles that raise the red flags for NPPers, particularly articles about individuals, bands, and companies. There is a constant stream of articles created about kids in 9th grade who haven't done anything at all, garage bands formed in the last week, and companies that have done nothing of particular note and want to use Wikipedia to improve their notability. It is regrettable, but after awhile NPPers start mentally trying to fit new articles into those types of categories. Its those ones that you really want to have good sourcing for to avoid AfD. While perhaps NPPers are overly agressive with those frequently abused article types, they really do need to be dealt with. Meanwhile, if you want to create a new stub about a town/village or a species of butterfly, you are unlikely to end up at AfD if you have any sources at all. Monty₈₄₅ 16:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll also note that for 100% of the articles that I've started over the past 3-4 years, each and every one of them has been slapped with an AfD (most of them even PROD'd for a speedy delete). I have also had a 100% survival rate for all of those articles where the nomination for deletion was overturned and kept. "

I'm confused. Would you please list all these articles? If you want to limit it to 3-4 years, I'm at the moment only counting 2. Golden Spike Company and Fluidic Energy...and I have little issue with Fluidic Energy being tagged as it was created, even if it was only live a few minutes. I see another handful of articles from before 4 years ago that never had a problem. Also, I'm a bit curious about this redirect. Why would 1680 (number) redirect to 1000 (number)? What purpose does that serve? --Onorem♠Dil 16:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the problem here sounds like this analogy: "Every time I drive down Highway 1, there's traffic. I could take Highway 2, which would get me there in the same amount of time and drive the same distance, but the Highway 1 shouldn't have traffic so I should be able to use it." There are two solutions: 1 - Userfy to start, which honestly I cannot see why you are so averse to doing so. 2 - When you start the article as a stub, make sure you add 2 reliable sources to the article, so when someone patrols it, they see that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If you have these sources, add them when you start. If you don't, userfy for a short while. Nothing is lost in the world by waiting a few days or hours before adding an article to mainspace. Angryapathy (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points I want to make here on this.

1. We need to stick with policy here. There is no policy which requires users to create articles in user space first so we should not be requiring that here. I see a lot of editors trying to justify the argument but unless the policy is changed to reflect the statements it just doesn't have any validity.
2. Crystal ball - Justifying the deletion of the article until Dec 6th is just a waste of time. If its noteworthy then the article should be kept. There's no reason to wrap around symantics over a period of a couple days.
3. Whether the article is noteworthy enough to be kept is a whole different can of worms. I think it probably qualifies but just barely. I think the sources are pretty weak though but I don't see anything that makes me think its advertising or anything like that. I don't think (and no offense intended here) the article looks all that high value. I really don't know that many readers are going to notice if its here or not. Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Nobody's saying that one must create articles in user space first. What is being said is that, if you (like me, and the OP, apparently) grow articles little by little, over the space of several hours, it's a good practice that makes everybody happier and avoids the misunderstandings herein noticed. But hey, if you create an article from scratch which is already well referenced and formatted from its very first edit (perhaps by using an offline text editor first), then no problem at all. --Cyclopia^talk 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably worth pointing out that using an offline text editor does not afford the opportunity to test wikilinks. I solve that problem by copying and pasting whatever I am working on into any edit window on wikipedia and using edit preview. Obviously it requires care to not accidentally click save instead of preview, and the safest edit window to use is a sandbox... Apteva (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is fairly active in AFD discussions, I do notice the change of perspective on this. Back when I started editing there was a lot more tolerance for stubs than there is now, and there are whole classes of articles for which there is little or no toleration for stubs. Articles on corporations is one of those, and certain types of biographies are another. In both cases, it seems to me, the problem is the same: the only real standard for notability is references, so an under-referenced article is take as prima facie evidence against notability. This is in contrast to, for example, athletes and politicians, for which there are straightforward standards which can be applied to the text of the article even if the material is uncited. Given the steady rain of promotional articles for businesses and products and musicians, this approach is somewhat understandable, but it would save a lot of grief if AFD nominators would do the few basic web searches which it is often enough apparent they didn't bother with. That said, I don't see how we're going to get away from this. It's not unreasonable to expect the basic research to be done by authors. But if we go this way we really need to spell out the expectation. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I have also noticed that we have a lot less tolerance for stubs than we used to... perhaps it is because "back in the old days" we did not have the concept of "userfy" at AFD. When the choice was limited to a stark "Keep or Delete" choice, we tended to give borderline cases the benefit of the doubt. But now... with "userfy and return when improved" as an accepted (and increasingly common) option... not so much.

I think this is an issue where Consensus has changed (or at least is in the process of changing)... but the change has occurred organically, and is not reflected in policy/guidelines anywhere. Perhaps it is time to hold a community wide RFC to discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seem to be many of these "unwritten" rules that have creeped in over the last few years. An RFC on this may well be needed!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much tolerance for stubs, particularly if it's in an unusual subject area for Wikipedia/the reviewers. It doesn't mean the article topic deserves an AfD tag, but the onus is on the editor who writes the article to make it clear right off the bat why the topic/subject is notable.

I've had stuff tagged for deletion before I was finished working on it, and I had to turn up some extra sources double-quick. But that's just the reality of the process at this point. Editors who review new articles go through them at a fast clip, so maybe some guidelines would help editors who write as well as the editors who review? I'm thinking of clearer minimum content guidelines that will help editors prepare articles before they go live with them. There are sooo many policy documents on establishing notability, it's high time they were organized in a way that's simpler to navigate for newbies. If the notability criteria could be summarized, what would be the basic points you would include? Then go from there. Make it easy to drill down for relevant details based on whichever subject area you're writing in. Make it as simple as the uploader at Wikimedia Commons....OttawaAC (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sad that the guy that started this thread, gets every single article he creates taken to AFD. I am also very sad to hear that so many agree that articles should start in the namespace until they are "ready" for publication on Wikipedia (which is not at all policy and still doesn't stop the article from showing up on a Google seach by the way) but what bothers me the most about all of this is that there seems to be little input that the entire point of Wikipedia is collaboration. Articles should not be the product of a single editor. Not that they should be deleted for it, but that others should be willing to help contribute more. The more eyes and input on an article, the better it will be. We are allowed to create stub articles for the very reason that others can add information and build it to GA or FA standards. I feel this is about working together and this thread is something of symptom of Wikipedia growing ever more towards a few established editors in a number of areas. Work together and improve the project and the article and try to find a way to save things...if they can be. Sure we have a lot of promotional stuff to worry about, but somethings that are being pushed as promotion are notable in themselves so we don't just delete it as it makes it difficult to recreate it later.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a problem when people demand the creation of fully polished articles. I don't think it's much of a problem to expect that the initial article creation contain at least one reference to a completely independent, third-party source about the topic.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I know another editor suggested two RS, but from what I understand, the standard is at least one as the "overarching" source to begin the article. Two would be good and even more...better of course. But I really do not like to write an entire article by myself. Not that I can't, haven't or won't in the future, but that i prefer articles to have a history of contributions from as large a pool of editors as possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people expect a "fully polished" article... but they do expect that an article (even a stub) will pass a certain minimum standard before it is taken "live". Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "a definition, one more sentence and a source (maybe two)" is not a high standard. It is not hard to write such an article in one sitting - if the sources have been found (and if they have yet to be found, one should look for them instead of writing the article).

Furthermore, refusing to meet even such low requirements actually impedes collaboration. Someone who finds an article that is not even a "decent stub" isn't going to be able to expand it, for there will be little to indicate what an article is supposed to be about... Such "articles" only mask the lack of a real article (red links are changed to blue)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out the "every single article" angle. As far as I can tell, the number is 2.

I don't think people are agreeing that users should be made to start in user space. I think people are saying if you feel like your articles are being repeatedly "attacked" for not being ready for mainspace, it would probably be a good idea to start them in userspace.

Stubs are great...when they have some indication of why the topic is notable and a source to back that up.

Nobody is demanding the creation of fully polished articles. Take that strawman somewhere where it might be useful to fend off crows. --Onorem♠Dil 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why you are attacking me like this? Why the hell does it matter how many articles I'm involved with, and the presumption that this is the only account I've used, that I've never used an IP address, or worked collaboratively with other editors in creating new articles and had the same damn experience? What you are doing here by attacking me with this "two article" issue is a pure ad hominim attack and being critical of a minor point and missing the big issue here. My point is that this is a pattern of something that needs to be recognized as a serious problem on Wikipedia. If you don't see that, you are simply blind to what the real problem is.

I'm a "big boy" and I've seen raging discussions on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I can take this kind of stuff... and I knew that the AfD was going to go absolutely nowhere even before the proposer even bothered to create the AfD nomination page in the first place (I saw the notice on the article go up before the AfD page was even created).

What I'm complaining about even more though is that I'm told that I was wrong to create this article, that somehow reliable sources about even a few basic facts about this company were unavailable, and that new articles simply can't be created in the main article space. By creating new articles, I'm talking adding a sentence, tweaking it a little, looking up a source to find some information to add to that article, and building up the article piece by piece. That is called creating an article. Furthermore, the point of Wikipedia is to be collaborative in nature and include people that you likely will never even meet in person... hiding an article in the user namespace does none of that.

As was pointed out on the AfD, by forcing this particular article onto my user name space along with perhaps dozens or even hundreds of other similar articles about the same company started by other users, it would have created a nightmare in terms of which one would be selected at the "true article", and then created an even larger mess as the other articles would need to be deleted.

Regardless, I can't stand what is being said in this thread by several participants and they are wishy washy and just don't want to take a stand on this issue. I am reading a whole bunch of doublespeak where you can create an article in the main namespace but you can't at the same time. That an optional program of the AfC process is actually not optional but mandatory. If you are going to take a position, take it and seize it with all of your gusto and don't be a wimp on this. Either you think articles should be created elsewhere first and that the policy on Wikipedia should be changed to reflect this attitude or let these kind of articles actually develop for a bit before a stupid AfD nomination is placed on them. I don't understand why this non-commitment of halfway inbetween and why there is a penalty being applied to somebody creating a new article but that person who is editing even a half-started stub can't take a freaking bathroom break while creating that article and save something mid-way in the main article namespace. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. The problem is not where you create the article, is how the article is when it is in mainspace. You can create the article any way you like, in userspace, in mainspace or whatever, provided it can reasonably stand on its own from the first moment it is on main space. So, if you want to directly create articles in mainspace, just do it in a way that when you click the "Save page" button on main space, the article is already able to walk on its feet. If you feel not to do that, then use your own userspace. Is it clearer now? --Cyclopia^talk 18:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you heard of this template? It seems to fix the problem you're talking about. --Cyclopia^talk 18:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that template only gets placed on talk pages, because I think if it were to be placed in article space it would be the worst maintenance template I have ever seen! It is wrong on so many levels. It is a message from one editor to others (it is of no benefit to readers), it implies ownership, it breaches WP:SELF "articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates" and given the size of the message it would dominate a stub. -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you use a silly template like that? I understand it can be useful (I actually didn't know about that particular template BTW... thanks for the link) but you shouldn't assume that everybody knows everything about Wikipedia. I also see such templates as mainly saying "this guy has a clue about Wikipedia... back off". It still doesn't solve the problem of the AfD getting tossed on anyway as I am pretty certain the proposer would have tossed on the AfD even with this template. I just don't think that a page, while it is "under construction" and clearly being worked on, should necessarily be in perfect order on the very moment it is started. Yes, I do "get it" in terms of where the article is being created. I just don't think you understand that writing is a process that has fits and starts and doesn't come easy to everybody, or that your writing style is necessarily what your writing style is. I also completely disagree that an article should completely stand on its own at the very moment of its creation.... as that is way too high of a standard to be imposing on somebody who is actually writing something original.

You are imposing a standard that is far too high, and doing the doublespeak I'm talking about. No, what you've described is not clear either, because I still can't figure out what possible standard of article you are referring to here where somebody creates a basic stub that answers the Five Ws to at least have a gist of what the article will be about but still is obviously incomplete. You are asking for templates, reference.... hell you are asking that it goes beyond basic stub status. Or enlighten me if I am wrong here. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I did used this template instead when I started the article in question, and the AfD was slapped on anyway. I tried to get the message out that I was active in working on the article and digging up additional references. I had included not only the construction template, but four references and two complete sentences upon the first edit in this case. If that standard was too low, what are you saying should be the standard for the "first edit"? --Robert Horning (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I just don't think you understand that writing is a process that has fits and starts and doesn't come easy to everybody" - I totally understand that, it's the same for me: so why can't you use your user space, if this is the case? What's the problem with that? Can you answer this specific question, because we don't see a reason for your whining, otherwise. Because you're beginning to be very, very needy. You don't want to use your userspace for what it is for (with no reason given about it); you don't want, as an alternative, to use templates to warn editors that you're working on an article (with no reason given about it), and you don't want community standards to apply to the articles you create until some nebulous moment in their future (with no reason given about it). Some other arbitrary request? --Cyclopia^talk 19:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on and off on about a dozne new articles, some of them like "Parliament Square, Edinburgh" (that was created this week) was created in situ without any earlier construction, others like William Govan took much longer to create and were created in my sandpit before being copied to article space. For me it depends on the complexity of the subject and how many sources need to be summarised to fashion an article (horses for course). However even with simple stubs like the Square I never save the text to create an article in article space before creating a stub with cited reliable sources, so if an reader happens to find the page before any more edits take place it is still up a useful standard. Since the creation of the Govan article in February this year there have been a total of 8 different editors who have worked on it. In the case of the Square four editors in in three days. So perhaps stubs on notable topics can encourage more collaboration than fully formed articles (where I have noticed a tendency for some editors of such articles to exhibit ownership that can lead to less collaboration). -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, There is a discussion at ANI about the use of primary sources and birth dates. One user had added a bunch of birth dates, sourced to a reliable primary source. That is against our BLP policy WP:BLPPRIMARY which specifically says

"Do not use public records that include personal details, such as 
date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, 
and home or business addresses." 

(Emphasis added)

Clearly the intent is to protect privacy, but given that dates of birth are common elements in most paper encyclopedias, this seems a bit restrictive. I'm hoping to either A) get a deeper appreciation for the justification of this or B) get consenosus to remove "date of birth" from that element of BLPPRIMARY. I'll post a link to this discussion on the BLP talk page. Hobit (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source cited at the ANI discussion is "U.S. Public Records Index." I have some experience with this from my family tree research on Ancestry.com, and I've been less than impressed with its accuracy. It's also something of a black box because you can't actually get to view the underlying data. Here's what Ancestry.com has to say about it: "The U.S. Public Records Index is a compilation of various public records spanning all 50 states in the United States from 1950 to 1993. These records are all accessible to the general public by contacting the appropriate agency. Ancestry.com has simply made the process of finding certain public records easier by making them available in an online searchable database." And then this caveat: "As Ancestry.com is neither the author nor the compiler of the data in its indexes, we cannot assume responsibility for the accuracy of this information. Please exercise caution when judging the accuracy of data in the U.S. Public Records Index. Some addresses and telephone numbers are invalid and birthdates may be inaccurate as well." So its reliability is a more pertinent question than its status as a primary source. postdlf (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with not allow a non-RS of course. The reliability of ancestry.com is, I think, independent of the policy issue I'd like to raise. As policy reads (and is being implemented) we wouldn't allow a primary source to be used for date of birth even if it was 100% reliable. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know that my answer is narrower than you intended, but I think the question really hinges less on "primary" vs. "secondary" and more on the nature of the source we're talking about--the source's relative privacy or accessibility and its reliability. Newspapers, for example, are considered in some contexts to be primary sources, but I don't think many WP editors would reject a newspaper article as a source for a birth date or age.

    To go back to the BLP policy language, I note that it says about primary sources generally to use them with caution, but says not to use "public records" at all, a mere subset of primary sources. Do you have a problem with a restriction on public records, and if so, which public records do you think we should use and why? Or do you think we are too restrictive with primary sources as a whole? postdlf (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is that public records frequently include information which is not just DoB - and for us to link to, say, addresses would, in fact, potentially lead to privacy violations (or SWATting of celebrity homes etc.). Sources which only have DoB, moreover, may link to the "wrong person" which is also poor for an encyclpedia. So we simply trust that a proper reliable source will provide the information at some point, and if they don't - then they likely felt the data was of minimal value. Which t generally is. Collect (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the material quoted above is relates only to the use of primary sources for birth dates. This is not the only guidance about birth dates in WP:BLP. It also states (in part): "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". In other words, we should not be adding dates of birth at all, unless they are widely reported (or published by the subject themselves), and only then if the person is notable (eg do not put dates of birth for spouses, etc). I suggest people who do not understand the rationale for this read WP:BLP in full. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with what Delicious carbuncle says above. From nearly six years of personal experience in the BLP trenches and involvement in the OTRS BLP/Quality queue, we get personal stats such as exact birhdate wrong more often than I think most editors realize. The most BLP compliant option is also the most parsimonious one: If in doubt, leave it out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The exact DOB is almsot always unencyclopedic info, and it's useful for identity theft. We should generally not publish it unless it's clearly encyclopedic, i.e. its notability is documented by secondary sources. In the case of very famous people I wouldn't get too worked up about it, but for the less famous it's a privacy invasion. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Biographies need birth dates and death dates. Wikipedia demands accuracy. If an accurate birth date can be found in public records, it should be used in a biography. The argument that Wikipedia reproducing publicly available public records information is somehow "an aid to identity theft" is specious. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Biographies need birth dates and death dates" is itself specious, since BLP's by definition don't have death dates, and we have plenty of perfectly good ones without birth dates. A claim that the DOB is relevant to the biography has to be backed by secondary sources just like any other disputed content in a BLP. The argument that "[t]he argument that Wikipedia reproducing publicly available public records information is somehow 'an aid to identity theft' is specious" is also specious. If we could find the person's home address, mothers' maiden name, social security number, etc. in public records, putting that in the article would obviously assist identity theft, so we don't do it. It's an absolutely central theme in BLP policy that not everything in public records is encyclopedic. Wikipedia biographies are not dossiers. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyway, why is this discussion happening here instead of WT:BLP? 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some links:
  • [10] "Birth-date blues can cost with identity theft" / "Your birthday could lose you everything. Too often a date of birth is all that an organisation asks as a security check to confirm your identity."
  • [11] "Online information about your date of birth and place of birth could allow identity thieves to guess your Social Security number, according to a paper by two Carnegie Mellon researchers."[12]
  • [13] "Using a variety of methods, criminals steal Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, credit card numbers, ATM cards, telephone calling cards, and other pieces of individuals' identities such as date of birth.
  • [14] "Some states, like Massachusetts, have lax procedures for distributing birth certificates. The bottom line: your complete birthday (e.g., March 12, 1984) is one of the valuable pieces of sensitive personal data which identity thieves can (and do) use."
  • [15] "Your name, date of birth, address, credit card, Social Insurance Number (SIN) and other personal identification numbers can be used to open credit card and bank accounts, redirect mail, establish cellular phone service, rent vehicles, equipment, or accommodation, and even secure employment."
  • [16] "Access to your social networking page — Where you might give away your date of birth and enough information for him or her to guess your PIN and passwords." is given as #3 on list of items sought by identity thieves.
  • [17] ... These robbers typically start by using theft or deception to learn a person's Social Security number, date of birth or other personal information. Armed with those details, the perpetrators can open credit card accounts, make purchases, take out loans, or make counterfeit checks and ATM cards in your name.

The above came from the first page of google hits on "date of birth" "identity theft". I think the folks here claiming DOB is irrelevant to identity theft have a WP:RANDY problem. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a monthly contest (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#DAB Challenge leaderboard) to see who can fix the most links to disambiguation pages. I would like to offer a small but meaningful cash prize to whoever wins next month's contest, and I would like to make sure that the community does not consider this to be a violation of any policies. I do not think that it should be considered "paid editing" because the prize would be based solely on the number of errors fixed, without seeking to promote the editing of any particular article, or imposing any particular point of view. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume does not always equal quality. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we already have internal controls for that (the contest has been going on for several years now, and continues whether a tangible prize is offered or not). Cheers! bd2412 T 12:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why does it merit a cash prize now? Leaky Caldron 12:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question isn't "should he do it?", but "if he were to do it, would it run afoul of the paid editing or other policies?" (unless the reason behind it might change its violation status). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worser than the Wikipedia:Bounty board. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no issue given the nature of the idea (no COI seems possible) and think it a wonderful gesture. Very kind.Hobit (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I also would have no problem with the proposed prize. Clearly this is on the approved side of the massive paid editing grey area, but as it still touches it, there are likely to be a be a few objections. Either way, there is no policy that would prohibit it. Monty₈₄₅ 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think it violates any policy but I personally would find such situation unhealthy. I think a much better move would be to give the winner(s) a barnstar and add some personal words, or possibly offer a non-monetary prize like a pen or a calendar.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]