Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions

WP:BLANKING has seen a change recently to include active block notices on the list of items that can't be removed by users from their talk pages. (Recently as in a couple months ago, but without recent discussion.)
For reference, there is now a discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Change to WP:BLANKING, but I'd like the discussion to take place here on the Village Pump so that it receives input from a wider audience.
Thanks ahead of time for any input you have on the subject. --Onorem♠Dil 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My own opinion hasn't changed since last June..."I also don't think current block notices need to be shown. The block notice is there for the benefit of the person being blocked. If they've seen it and want to remove it, I see no reason to revert them. Unblock requests, ban notices, sockpuppet tags...those are there for the benefit of the people who may be dealing with an ongoing issue." --Onorem♠Dil 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal (My rationale is the same at WT:UP#Change to WP:BLANKING) Why must we force a user to keep a scarlet letter on their talk page when this notice in regards to a user's block automatically appears at the top of the talk page to inform other editors when it is being edited? Declined unblock requests are necessary while a user is blocked, but a notice for the user letting them know they have been blocked should not be forced onto the talk page when a user has read it (hence the blanking). These notices are only posted for the blocked user's notification, not other editors who happen upon the talk page. The last time I checked, block notices don't say "Hey all editors who come to this user's talk page: he or she has been blocked! FYI." It tells how long an editor has been blocked and why so that they can appropriately appeal by posting an unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't allow removal of block notices. If users wish to not have block notices on their talk page, they need to not behave in manners which get themselves blocked. --Jayron32 23:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of the notice in this situation? I wish people would not behave in manners that get them blocked. That would be great. What exactly is the benefit of forcing the notice? It's a good thing that nobody ever gets blocked for good faith reasons...or doesn't take the time to reflect on their edits until after they are blocked. Those scarlet letters will surely fix everything. --Onorem♠Dil 03:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't allow removal of block notices, Per Jayron. Also this was decided a few months ago, and if I remeber correctly, it leaned heavily towards disallowing removal. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - since most of the block notices don't say "This must remain until the block has expired", it is kind of open for people to think they can remove it, since we typically let people modify their Talk page however they wish. Maybe it would be useful to modify the Templates. -- Avanu (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't allow removal - allows users to game the system. Also, this is helpful if a user is trying to get a hold of a blocked user and doesn't realize they're blocked. --Rschen7754 00:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In what ways could a user game the system by removing a notice? They'd still be blocked... Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And when you edit the talk page of a blocked user, you get a message "This user is currently blocked", so you will necessarily realize that they're blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not allow removal by user but there can be a note in the request unblock info that the blocked user can ask for the notice to be removed, and if an established editor thought that it was desirable, that third party could remove the notice. There would be no need for any bureaucracy (i.e. do not require a discussion with the blocking admin), but someone other than the blocked user should think that removal would help the encyclopedia. If it is a short block, the time will soon elapse and removal would be pointless fiddling. If it is a long block, there is a reasonable likelihood that someone will visit the talk page (without necessarily wanting to leave a message), and it is helpful for the situation to be apparent. The recent change to WP:BLANKING simply clarifies what the old wording implied (obviously an active block is a sanction). Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Or, you know, we can just allow removal of block notices since nothing is gained from forcing a user to keep it on their talk page. Is it that big of a deal that an uninvolved user would have to approve of a removal of the notice? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow removal (possibly with exceptions in circumstances which it's really necessary.) Because theres something inherently unpleasant about a community which insists on forcing everyone we've ever kicked out on wearing a dunce's hat in perpetuity and I'm not convinced theres any adequate reason to do so. I think this applies especially in cases of controversial blocks and blocks of established users, where enforcing block notices through edit warring is likely only to create ill will and the appearance of grave dancing. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of the arguments against are more applicable to expired blocks and warnings than to active blocks. It's very easy to tell if a user is currently blocked (if you don't know - click 'edit' on their user page or talk page), but it's more difficult to tell if they've previously been blocked (which requires accessing their block log - which isn't built in to the standard skin) or have recieved a final warning for something (which means going through the archives or edit history). Bob House 884 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know whether we're talking about removal of the notice during the period of the block, or after the block has been lifted. Different contributors, above, seem to be talking about one or other of these. Clearly they're not the same. The policy, as I recall it, deals only with notices during the period of the block. So. Are we talking about "dunces hat in perpetuity" or merely keeping the notice in place whilst the block is in place? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:BLANKING has seen a change recently to include active block notices on the list of items that can't be removed by users from their talk pages" (emphasis mine). I've taken that to be the scope of the discussion. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my comment was based on the block notice covering an active block. That is, you get blocked, you get notified by the blocking admin. Don't remove that notification until the block expires or is lifted. After the block expires/is lifted, you can do whatever you want. --Jayron32 02:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about my change to the "Sanctions that are currently in effect" item. The edit introduced "notification of a currently active block" as an item that may not be removed by the user. Almost everyone agrees that a user may remove notices of expired or revoked blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow removal. Why not? What good will removing it do them anyways? What good does the template serve to those other than them? If they continue to vandalize after the block and require another block, the blocking admin will be able to see past blocks in the block interface, and if they ever apply for rights the admin there will obviously take a gander and their block log. This is a solution searching for a problem... Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow removal. Admins should use some method of keeping track of who's been blocked (such as the logs) which is not possible for the user to change. The mere fact the talk page can be played around with is why it shouldn't be relied on at all. The user page should be to communicate with the user, not to signal admins, not to be a Scarlet Letter. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not allow removal While it may be the habit of some users who don't review things properly to just glance at the block log and pass judgement, a proper block notice (and any relevant discussions/information which indicate a more complete rationale for the block, including diffs) should be retained for the purpose of assessing whether a block is warranted, justified, and/or necessary. We have limited resources and if an admin or other users have already gone to the trouble of providing a rationale (be it for the user, for other admins, or for the community as a whole), it's not so that it can just be removed and then some admin can come along and then miss something crucial to the block. A block log is limited in the information it provides (more often limited to a general scope of the issue). We've already had one situation where an IP was causing trouble and pointing out how susceptible the system is to abuse and misuse of this kind; it was an embarrassment to pretty much all admins that the Community needed to invoke a site ban in that case in order to address the issue. We don't need more of the same for some misguided and unjustified belief that it is some scarlet letter; if we were forcing users to retain it after the block is expired, that may warrant such a belief, but the reasons are pretty clear cut for keeping it in view while the block is in force. I certainly will not support a view that encourages a deliberate and/or persistent gaming of the system. Note: this does not prevent users who are gravedancing to be dealt with appropriately, but this is different to providing information regarding why an user was blocked, or what other pattern of behavior or incidents exist in a particular case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Instruction creep. We don't need special rules for this. The only type of situation where enforcing block notices to stay on the page is really worth the trouble is while a blocked user is seeking an unblock; if he prefers to just wait it out and move on there is no reason why anybody else should ever need to care about the notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Q. Would it be possible to modify the code to allow for something like a red notice at the top of the page that shows the log entry of the latest block? It's a quick solution that would be quite helpful to admins who might not have caught on to the block due to any blanking or a tedious, indirect back-and-forth on the talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Such a notice is already displayed when editing the page, and someone could write a script if someone wanted it shown at the top the page when simply viewing it. –xeno^talk 17:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow removal. The blocking information is available anyway to anyone who tries to contact the user. The rationale behind enforcing the notice is not clear, as it suggests that editors are encouraged to restore removed notices, which is a sure way of creating problems and tension for everyone concerned. Established practise per Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments is that if a user removes a notice, then it is clear they are aware of the notice - job done, no further action needed. The reason we established that practise, is because restoring notices leads to edit wars and conflict, and is inclined to push a frustrated user into a nasty corner. If someone has a temporary block it is because we wish them to return. They may not return if we push them too far at a low moment in their Wikipedia career. Blocked users are not evil - they are just people who may have erred in some way, and some previously blocked editors have gone on to become admins. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal - I see no reason that block notices need to remain on a talk page. If anyone is interested in when someone was blocked, it is there forever in the block log. If they are interested in more than the information in the block log, all the information is avalaible in the history. I do think it is appropriate to leave the block notice on the page if the editor is asking for an early unblock. Then it is pertinent to an ongoing discussion and should remain otherwise they acknowledge they have read it and it has done it job and can be removed. GB fan (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal, nothing is gained by edit warring to keep them. If you want to outlaw something, better outlaw edit warring on other people's talk pages by re-adding warnings or block templates. —Kusma (t·c) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow removal, If you've been blocked, your block notice needs to remain in place so administrators (and other editors) can get the context of why your editing privileges have been suspended. Even if the editor acknowledge their mistakes and elect to sit the duration of the block, they probably recieved warnings prior to the block reminding them of what the community saw wrong with their actions. Once the sanction is no longer in effect, the editor is perfectly free to remove the block notice. In response to the arguments about remaining for an early appeal, it's nearly impossible to know if and when a user might early appeal their restriction. Is it reasonable to expect a restricted editor to restore the block notice before they make their early appeal? In response to the "Scarlet Letter" arguments: This is not a permanant branding, this is like anklet based house-arrest. After the period of the sanction is complete, the editor is perfectly free to return to the anonymous mass of the community. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow removal. There are numerous reasons why it is convenient, if not 100% essential, for a block-notice to remain visible to all on the page of an editor while they are blocked. On the other hand, there are no reasons why removing it is a good idea. Therefore, the balance has to tip towards disallowing such behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not allow removal per above comments. I'm also not sure this is the appropriate venue to be rehashing a discussion that very recently had clear support somewhere else. In any case, I see plenty of reasons that active block notices are useful for others (transparency, context on the reason for the block, context for unblocking admins on unblock requests, etc), and the only major argument I'm seeing against that is "why not?". I've seen users try and remove previous unblock requests prior to requesting an unblock, which could "game the system" by tricking the unblock admin into thinking there was no previous context. I've also seen users remove active block notices, only to have others add content to their talk page, unaware the user couldn't participate. I've also been in situations where active block notices would have been useful to me, personally. Furthermore, my experience has been that this is currently the community's thought on this issue, as I've seen it pointed out to blocked users repeatedly, and our policy page should describe that, not prescribe a new rule by which we expect it to change.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I might unwatch this page for the duration of the discussion so I don't end up responding so often that I appear to be badgering...so this will hopefully be my last comment here. I don't think it's inappropriate to request discussion on the page designed to give the community a place to discuss changes to policies and guidelines. 27-17 or so in a !vote 8 months ago isn't so recent that I think it's inappropriate to discuss again, especially when it's a change to a practice that's been discussed many times and enforced in a different way for years and when the previous discussion didn't actually lead to the change. I agree that unblock requests shouldn't be removable while a user is blocked. (unless maybe if it's indef and they just want to blank their page completely) That's not part of this discussion. If users are adding content to blocked users talk pages, they should hopefully notice the big red 'this user is blocked' edit notice and realize they can't participate. Can you give a specific example of a situation where the block notice would have been useful? When I'm dealing with a specific user, it's probably unlikely that I wouldn't check their talk page history, make an edit to their talk page, or check their recent contributions...all things that would pretty quickly indicate their current editing status. If I understood what purpose past shaming the blocked user these notices were supposed to have, I'd likely change my stance. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • re: "I've seen users try and remove previous unblock requests prior to requesting an unblock, which could "game the system" by tricking the unblock admin into thinking there was no previous context." Any admin who looks only at a blocked user's talk page without looking at contributions before reviewing an unblock request is not competent and should be desysopped. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow removal If you're blocked and it's not overturned or amended later, then it's proooobably your fault. And as we're all adults here (wait, lol), I'm sure we can all live with a little notice or two. It's not shameful, that's just psychological. Removing would make it more of a hassle to determine if a user is blocked. For example, if I want to ask a user for immediate help with an article when they've actually been blocked for a week, I'd like to know that before going ahead and asking them, because they won't be able to do anything. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually very simple to see whether or not a user is blocked - just open the edit screen for their talk page. And depending on the situation, the user may keep an eye on their talk page for the duration of the block, and be able to answer you there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow removal - Blocking isn't a scarlett letter. Leaving the notice there is in no way preventive, it's punitive. Removal of the notice has been OK and standard for some years, and admins reviewing blocks have long had to (and expected to) go check the old talk page versions if there were any removals. It's not that hard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal otherwise Wikipedia would be in breach of the license that applies to the addition of the notice. This license allows any one to modify the text and warns if you don't like people changing it don't put it there. However since it is intended as a communication to the blocked user, the blocked user should at least read it before removing. Once they have read it the blocked user can safely remove the notice. Others who care if the person is blocked will see the notice when they edit the talk page. Side effects on twinkle are the twinkle users problem, and the twinkler should use another method to edit if there is an issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal Users should continue to be allowed to remove all template trash from their talk page. The wp:own problem should most definitively not be expanded onto user pages. There is no need to troll and stalk (former) editors. It has nothing to do with the project. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal - user talk pages are for communication between a user and the rest of the project. Once the communication (notification of a block) has been received and read, the user should be free to remove or (at the end of the block) archive it. The matter of recording the present or past existence of a block is dealt with by block logs. Editors and admins wishing to see the history of an editor's block log or the history of that editor's talk page should consult the block log and page history. User talk pages are not the correct place to look for a record of such things and moving in that direction encourages admins and editors to be lazy and not look in the right place (i.e. the block log and page history). The matter of notices placed on a blocked user's user page is a bit more tricky, but that isn't being discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal as doing otherwise may encourage pointless revert wars in a user's own edit space. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As in, allow vandalism because that might also lead to revert wars? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Vandalism? I don't think so. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but I don't get this. Kralizec! (talk · contribs) appears to be reasoning that we should allow pointless, unconstructive edits in order to prevent edit-warring over them. That's ridiculous. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 08:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if removal is allowed, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Block_log_annotation may be of interest. Rd232 public ^talk 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal - this template is for the blocked user; the actual information is in the user's block log, which the user can't remove (nor can any other user, unless using WP:REVDEL). Very frequently, if a user has ever been blocked before, the previous blocks are as necessary for an admin reviewing the block as is the current block reason; and we definitely don't want to tell a user to never remove the block notices! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood. This discussion is about removal of current block notices meaning the block is still active. Once the block expires they are free to remove the notice at any time. TMCk (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misread this argument which you are dismissing offhand. They're saying a) that the block warning is for the benefit of the blocked user, whilst the block log is the official record of blocks and b) that it's arbitrary to force users to display active blocks but not inactive ones as any sort of due diligence which must occasionally be done requires consideration of both. Theres no element of 'misunderstanding' in this, they're just pointing out hipocrisy in the 'do not allow' camp. Bob House 884 (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't allow removal.Users could be unwillingly engage in editing by proxy while not being aware that an editor is currently blocked. TMCk (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone asks on their user talk page for an edit to be made, the obvious question (why can't they make the edit themselves) should be answered by looking at their block log. Editors shouldn't need a block notice on a user's talk page to tell them of this. They should learn to consult the block log instead. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only think of two possible reasons why any user would do an edit requested on the talk page of the requesting user:
      1. The request comes as part of an on-going discussion between theusers in question. In this case, should the requesting user get blocked, the other user would probably know about it.
      2. The requesting user is blocked, and has a request whgich is urgent enough to override the rule against proxying. Note that this clearly is a possibility - I once did such a thing, although I don't want to state the reason for this publicly.
    • עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal – Unlike unblock requests, if they wish to remove block notices from their userpages, that is not going to deny users quick information on the status of the user as removing an unblock request would (as one can see the block rationale while looking at the blocked user's contributions). –MuZemike 04:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow You can always see the block log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow removal - It makes it easier as an administrator if I can see the reason for the initial block when trying to determine whether or not to honor an unblock request. Often the block template has more information than what is in the block log. Sure, I can and do look into the history of the talk page if the block template is missing, but that takes extra time to look up and it's possible to miss it. I don't see that a block template is any more of a "scarlet letter" than the pink box you already get when editing the talk page. If leaving the block template doesn't do extra harm, and it's helpful to admins, I believe it shouldn't be allowed to be removed while the block is in effect, the same way we don't allow editors to remove declined unblock requests or ban notices (which again are no less "scarlet letters" than the block template). Keep in mind I refer to active blocks, editors should always be allowed to remove block templates for expired blocks. -- Atama頭 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how can you confirm that the block message is, in fact, the original one left by the blocking admin, without looking into the history? It's quite simple for a blocked user to replace the block template with a different one, and if the blocked user knows what (s)he's doing, he/she can use this to trick an admin into acepting the request. The real methods to know the background is to look at the revisions of the talk page leading up to the block, the diff of the revision where the block message was added, the block log entry, and communication with the blocking admin. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same argument can be made for declined unblock templates and ban templates, so should we allow editors to delete them as well? I'd say no. Any editor can make up bogus info on their talk page to trick an admin into unblocking them, but often that leads to a discrepancy which does nothing but raise suspicion and prompt the admin to look deeper into the editor's actions. When that reveals that an editor has been refactoring their talk page to fake their innocence, that would backfire and if I was the reviewing administrator I'd probably extend the block duration (if it wasn't indefinite) and almost surely revoke talk page access. -- Atama頭 22:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, block messages are easier to find in the page history, as they are frequently added by semi-automated tools which leave appropriate summaies automaticly - not to mention the fact that they are left by the blocking admin around the block time, and both of these can be found easily in the block log. Secondly, the poiint is that the block message isn't the best of evidence for the block reason - the block log is better; responded unblock requests are the best evidence for the reason for their own rejection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like a complete no-brainer to me. If we disallow removal, then we'd need to create a new process for block notice removal requests. Who wants to help police the WP:TPBNRRN (Talk Page Block Notice Removal Request Noticeboard)? Actually, this being Wikipedia, we'd probably find a group of people who're anxious to take time off from writing an encyclopaedia so as to run the process, but it strikes me as a whole lot simpler just to allow removal as we've always done.—S Marshall T/C 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Enforce with software, the block notice, however it is implemented, should not be removable.  It is pointless to enforce this with admin or editor effort.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Use common sense when deciding whether or not to allow the notice to be removed. If the user is removing the block notice in good faith, let them do it. WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow I don't think I've seen a single real reason these should be required to remain during the blocked period. Anyone engaging with the editor will see they are blocked, and can look back to see why. The only possibly valid reasons of having any policy here are those of being aware of bad behavior after the block has ended. There might be something to that in that vandalism right after a block can be grounds for a new block and someone mentioned being able to see that there's been a final warning. But keeping it up after the block is not being discussed here, and that would need a much broader policy discussion. If we're not requiring it after, there's no reason to keep it during. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 15:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal–Since these discussions are decided upon based upon the quality of the arguments and not on number of !votes I'd like to ask those that want to stop the removal to come up with one good reason why it benefits the ability of editors to create a better encyclopedia if editors are not allowed to remove the block template? If there isnt a good answer, and I havent seen one yet by any of those !voting here, then allowing for its removal should be allowed. A blocked user is blocked, they can not edit articles, it has achieved its purpose. A block or ban is NOT a scarlet-letter or informational for the Community-at-large as "badges of dishonor". Talk pages are not to be used to ruin the reputation of editors, mistakes are made, emotions get out of control, things happen. And yes vendetta's occur and editors get blocked for 24 hours because an admin has a bug up his arse, basically "shit happens". Who cares?! If someone is blocked, and it's not you, then it is none of your business why or when or how long they will be "out". Keep to yourself, keep the drama low, and stop with the instruction creep that is intended only to shame someone, and is in fact against the very ethos of our policies and has nothing to do with our purpose- to write an encyclopedia, not to create a society. Based on arguments, not !votes, in my opinion this discussion was decided long ago.Camelbinky (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal Removing it doesn't change anything. Neither does edit-warring it back in, which I am ashamed to say I have seen admins do from time to time. Policy has been long established that users may not remove declined unblock requests, as those are needed as reference for admins reviewing any subsequent request. That makes sense and should stay as it is. The block notice itself is not needed once it has been read by the blocked user, therefore they should be allowed to remove it the same as any other talk page notice. Forcing them to keep it up is pointless and demeaning, whether they deserved to be blocked or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not allow removal though noting this only for active blocks. Allowing them to remove block notices or declined unblock requests could allow an editor to post an unblock request with misleading information, and there's always the chance that an admin might not check very closely before unblocking. Most do, but there's always a slim chance an admin might look at an unblock request at face value. No, no change here is required. There are no negative aspects to keeping active blocks listed on a users talk page, and I can't think of any benefits to doing so. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't see the logic here. Of course, we don't want them to remove block notices while they are still asking for an unblock. But declaring a prohibition on removing notices won't practically stop people from removing them. The danger that some notice might have been removed and a reviewing admin might be seeing a misleading page remains the same, and admins will always have to check for such manipulations, whether there is an "official" prohibition in force or not. Of course, if I come to respond to an unblock request and find that the block notice is missing, I'll simply silently restore it together with my response, as a matter of course. Obviously, if the user then decides to revert-war over it and remove it again, their chances of a positive review of their unblock request are going to be slim. But that still doesn't change the fact that if a user opts for not raising an unblock request but simply wishes to walk away, wait out the block and be left alone, forcing them to keep the notice against their will is nothing but institutionalized WP:DICKishness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal. the block notice is for the benefit of the editor, Jewishprincess (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow blocks are not punitive. They are to protect the project. The intent of any message on the user's talk page is to communicate with that user; that's what talk pages are for. If they have read the notice, then they should be allowed to remove it. The record of the block is maintained. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow per above, the preventitive block becomes punative when a user is forced to display the notice against their wishes. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh allow. My first thought was do NOT allow, (easier to see the current status), but really, as someone above said... "It doesn't change anything". We're not here to embarrass folks (scarlet letter thing). I'd say keep the ban notices, and allow the block notice removal. People make mistakes, hopefully they learn, and everyone moves forward in a productive manner. — Ched :  ?  23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow removal. There's nothing there that can't be seen in the block log of page history, and as mentioned many times above we're not out to embarrass people needlessly. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not allow removal. The presence of the notices is quite important on IP talk pages, where there is the potential for multiple users to be confused by a sudden inability to edit. I'd prefer (grudgingly, with some misgivings) to allow removal by autoconfirmed users because there are cases where blocks are misapplied and later overturned but nonetheless carry a degree of stigma while they last. But if the choice is either allow or disallow, I'd choose the latter.Rivertorch (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No, because some people would find it easier to go to the talk page to check whether the user has been blocked before. General Rommel (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a bit of a general ongoing debacle about whether or not WP:BEFORE is required, ie. whether nominating an article for deletion without having made the slightest effort to check out potential sources permissible [1] and I'd be interested in some input on this? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would like to know the status of WP:BEFORE. Is an editor required to do an in-depth investigation of an article's notability before CSD or AfDing it? What if the article is one sentence long, has no assertion of notability and zero references, such as this article? Basket of Puppies 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret BEFORE as asking people to do in-depth research. In many (most?) cases simply Google-News or Google-Books searching the article title will suggest whether or not it's likely that sources exist: hardly arduous! ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I'd say required but you need not spend more than a couple of minutes. If you are sending articles to AfD where lots of good sources come up at the top of a Gnews or book search, you should be chided vigorously. If you do it regularly, you are wasting other people's time and should likely be banned from XfD until you agree to actually follow WP:BEFORE. Heck, I feel strongly !voters should do a web search before they !vote. I know I've missed obvious sources (and more commonly claimed sources were reliable that aren't if you look more closely) a number of times. It's embarrassing. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd be happy with 20 seconds in most cases. It's when I do the most cursory scan of Google Books and find twenty times the references needed to satisfy the GNG that I start getting irritable. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Required. Which makes a great deal of sense -- it saves the community what is otherwise wasted time, when a nom does a wp:before search prior to nominating an article for deletion. That allows the community to focus that time instead on more appropriate and helpful work at the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely. That's why it's the first thing you see on WP:AFD before instructions for listing an article at AFD. We don't delete articles for fixable problems. See also WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, part of Wikipedia:Editing policy. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disagreeing with a lot of the comments below branded as "optional". Obviously WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and all that. Best practice unless there's good reason not to might be a good statement then. As long as it's clear that "I don't have to" is not actually a reason for not doing it. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't have to" is exactly what WP:BURDEN says. Without a source readers cannot determine fact from hoax which is why contested and unsourced material can be immediately removed. Statements written without sources are just as likely to need to be re-written to comply with sources found - that's a lot of work, and it is why the burden to write from sourced material belongs on the author, not the editor. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why does no one read all of WP:BURDEN? "How quickly [the removal of unsourced material] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." And WP:BURDEN has to be read in conjunction with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM; both are part of policy. Yes, we want article creators and contributors to provide sources for the content they add. We also want article editors and deletion nominators to take the time and exercise due diligence to consider whether content can be fixed rather than just removed. Again, "I don't have to" is not itself a reason for not doing that, because we don't do or not do anything here simply because it is prohibited or required. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not required, but encouraged I've been on both sides of the debate on this one. On the one hand, I'll be looking through an article and notice how glaringly below standards it is, try to improve it, draw attention to it (by tagging with the appropriate improvement templates), and wait for someone to try to improve it. I consider that a "Due Diligence" in the fact that I tried improvement, people who are in that article's space were alerted of it's deficincies. Yet when it gets put up for discussion there's suddenly editors and IP addresses crawling out of the woodwork claiming that it can be improved and they will. In some cases it's blatantly obvious when even BEFORE won't help the article. In other cases having BEFORE applied has raised the article above my criticisim threshold. It really comes down to, I as an editor have my little niche where I am somewhat of a subject matter expert. I don't claim to hold any specialized information for other criteria, yet if articles are not improved when issues are pointed out, it shows me that there is little interest in the subject. Hasteur (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as I'm sure you're expecting) WP:NOEFFORT. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional but certainly should be done for courtesy towards others and to avoid cluttering AFD. The problem if it was made mandatory is that, if a topic does have sources (through Google, lets assume) but finding the sources using traditional search methods is difficult if not impossible, and I, the AFD nominator, did that and found no sources and thus AFD'd the article, someone will certainly game the mandatory nature and accuse me of "no, you didn't search *this* way to find these article...". Of if the sources are only in print journals, and me, without access to academic catalogs, determines there are no online sources, again, someone will complain "Well, you only had to go to your May issue of this journal to see it..." That said, even if optional, if an editor continually and regularly nominates articles without BEFORE and these have sources that are easily found by an obvious search, then there's a behavioral issue to take into account. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be the point to nominating an article for deletion unless one has determined to one's satisfaction that the article should be deleted? I think it should be a serious consideration taken upon oneself to nominate an article for deletion. One should only do so if one has thoroughly examined the topic of the article, and one should pay attention to and participate in the WP:AFD process. One should be prepared to change one's mind if other editors present arguments and present sources showing that the article should not be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of experience? Lack of clarity about what's required? (We do occasionally encounter people who believe that 100% of unref'd articles must be deleted.) Lack of understanding the subject (without realizing it)? Not every nom at AFD has the intelligence and experience that this group of editors does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional, but highly recommended, especially when running through a whole list of items someone else is going to have to check after you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional in regards to having go through the whole regime. Good practice to go through some of the points, though. I'm not a "deletionist" but somedays there seems to be a lot of stubby or inconsequential material out there, and the loss of some of that would be no big deal. To take the checking of sources, to put the burden absolutely on the reviewer (to give the nominator a neutral name) is unfair. It says in the guidance on writing your first article "Gather references both to use as source(s) of the information you will include and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter." Even if sources do exist, that does not make something notable of itself - I could scour the archives of my local newspaper and pull together enough mentions of the village hall, or even the corner shop but they would still not be a notable subject for an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional but recommended. Certainly it makes things go more smoothly if the nominator searches, but our verifiability policy says that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and I would add that this implies also someone wanting to keep material that is disputed. An article that's AfD'd for lack of sourcing is, essentially, disputed material, and a !voter wishing to keep it has the final responsibility to provide evidence supporting that material. That said, I agree with many of the points Masem makes above. An editor who habitually refuses to perform good-faith checks before nominating would bear speaking to, if only for the sake of our collegial editing atmosphere; however, codifying BEFORE as a requirement will, I suspect, lead to assumptions of bad faith against AfD nominators, with !voters suggesting that if only the nominator had put forth effort of level X rather than a clearly-unsuitable level Y, we wouldn't be here, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's make new bullet points and bold mark the first statement. BEFORE has been optional for years, etc. It's nice to do a cursory glance for refs but let's face it, sometimes we don't need to or sometimes people mess up and don't when they should. Let's use common sense. Killiondude (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional, BUT... BEFORE is part of a procedure, not a policy. Following it keeps you from embarrassing yourself and accidentally wasting the community's time with inappropriate nominations. Transparently following it—say, starting your nom with a description of your search strategy for sources—tells the community not only that this AFD is highly likely to be a legitimate candidate for deletion, but also that you are the sort of desirable, respectful, competent editor who takes reasonable efforts to avoid wasting everyone else's time. People who follow it get respect (and high rates of deletions); people who don't get disrespect (and, unfortunately, occasionally thoughtless "keep" !votes from people who have decided they're incompetent/jerks/etc). I wouldn't require it as a bureaucratic procedure, partly because some people are so familiar with a given subject area that they already know the state of sources. On the other hand, I personally don't believe I've ever nominated even one article without at least a quick trip to my favorite web search engine, and I can't imagine nomming multiple similar articles without doing my homework. But—your reputation, your nomination, your choice. If you like having your noms responded to with statements like "As anybody can see from the following basic web search results, there are at least hundreds of sources..." then I'm okay with that. I don't think that we have such a huge problem with this that we really need to put up a bureaucratic obstacle to AFDs when so many of them are actually valid (and when the others can be dealt with effectively case by case). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Required If you don't have time to do the research, then don't do the AfD per WP:DEADLINE. It's not like somebody else can't get to it who has the time, and the 'pedia won't explode if an article isn't nominated for deletion this very minute. Not to mention that any claim of non-notability has to be backed up by something. "I've never heard of it" is no better a reason to delete, than "I've heard of it" is a valid reason to keep. How does anyone make a claim that there is no coverage without looking outside of WP? Nominators should do their own homework. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and contested potential misinformation should be deleted immediately, regardless of WP:DEADLINE. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Required modulo IAR, i.e. optional if you know what you're doing. So if you skip a reference check in a fit of exhaustion or pique, okay, things happen, nobody should burn you at the stake. But if you routinely skip reference checks or think that "good faith effort" means you don't have to do it and anybody calling you out for failing to do it is violating AGF, then you should be brought up short. To put it in the clearest possible terms, every time you make an AfD nomination that results in a keep because of references that were easily found, you have imposed needless busywork on other volunteers that achieves nothing more than to keep you from damaging the encyclopedia with your laziness. Doing so as an occasional accident is just the cost of human effort. Doing so as a matter of course is inappropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I do not support "procedural keep, WP:BEFORE not followed" becoming the new WP:ILIKEIT at AfD. The question of anyone ignoring BEFORE is a matter of broad patterns of editor behavior, as in Basket of Puppies's fairly exemplary case, not something that should be routinely brought up in individual deletion debates. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be required for those that nominate many articles for AFD. Say over 10 nominations the nominator should have learned to do the before part to stop time wasting. For people new at this we can give them some more leaneancy in not following the recommendation. It should apply to people like Basket of Puppies for AFD. For A7 nominations the article can speak for itself. But for anything that is old, say over 3 months the nominator should check history and online references. We do get a fair amount of embarrassment through foolish nominations for deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional. If people want to suddenly make it obligatory they can throw a community-wide RfC, which I would be happy to comment on. Short of that, I'm not accepting its presence on a general community page as evidence it's a required read. I mean, Joseph Reagle can be found on internal pages too, and his book is shite. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Required to some extent (but a guideline, not policy) as I have been saying for years. Anyone can make mistakes, and the way of preventing mistakes is to go carefully. I this very month myself nominated an article for deletion that I should not have nominated, because I thought it so obvious that I did not search; fortunately others found the necessary references. There needs to be established procedure, because if in spite of all I have ever said I can let myself fall into this temptation, and use it unwisely, others can also, and so they do. The real question is a little more difficult: how thorough a search is necessary. The prescriptions in WP:BEFORE are considerably more stringent than is usually necessary or possible, and a full search in the sense I as a librarian consider a full search, will be rarely appropriate. In the exceptional case, the group at AfD can do it better than a single nominator. But a preliminary search to avoid discarding material careless and thoughtlessly, should be required. After all, the fewer articles we send unnecessarily for deletion, the more time for properly discussing the truly problematic and difficult-to-diecide deletions, and defintively getting rid of what we must get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hell no can you say instruction creep? --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Look, nobody is going to be blocking and banning people over BEFORE (well, if someone does I expect the community to overturn such action), but as others have said above it really ought to be a required checklist that you go through prior to nominating an article at AFD. This is one of those things that's not really policy, but it's certainly good procedure. We wouldn't be here (and at AN/I) if User:Basket of Puppies wasn't in the process of embarrassing himself and causing all sorts of unnecessary drama by following BEFORE.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Following the essence of WP:BEFORE is necessary in order to avoid deleting articles that shouldn't be deleted, and wasting the community's time. Taking articles to AFD which could easily be sourced with a couple of minutes effort of Google searching could legitimately be seen as acting in bad faith. We all make mistakes but editors who make no effort to follow WP:BEFORE should expect to be criticized for it. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional — 1., The burden of proof is on the article—not the nominator. Someone nominating an article for deletion should never have to be well-versed in the topic. 2. A requirement to "google for sources" would be unenforceable. 3. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. 4. Our policies are implicitly optional, especially so in this case. --slakr^\ talk / 07:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the burden of proof is on the nominator. "No adequate reason for deletion" is a keep. Under existing policy, a non-consensus is a keep. The need to show something notable is on the article is a prima facia case for non-notability is given, , but that's only part of the reasons for deletion. Why should someone be able to delete articles by saying merely "non-notable" without some reason, like lack of findable references. Otherwise it's "i don;tlike it." DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• required but not as policy, written policies are things we require all editors to follow, we should keep them pared down to the essentials. Procedures and unwritten rules are the lessons people learn as they become experienced editors, we need to make sure they are well documented and we need to communicate them clearly otherwise we risk the community becoming closed and unwelcoming to new editors. ϢereSpielChequers 08:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Guideline WP:BEFORE seems to have guideline status per WP:GUIDES, "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Editors who flout this guideline can expect to have it held against them on occasions such as RfA — TenPoundHammer is a good example. In extreme cases, more serious sanctions may apply —TTN is an example. Note also that WP:BEFORE contains many steps and is not just a matter of searching for sources. These steps include sensible behaviour like reading the talk page to see what discussions are already underway and to check for previous AFDs. The problem now is that Twinkle makes it too easy to start an XfD without doing any of those things. Twinkle should be modified to give the nominator a reminder, just as article creators are now prompted to think about sourcing or whether the article has been previously deleted. Warden (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Guideline as pointed out by Colonel Warden. I tend to agree with DGG and Jim Miller that we can't completely ignore best practices established by hard-fought consensus; we'd be left with anarchy (or reboot). BusterD (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Highly encouraged but not guideline/policy yet. I would expect to see a cleaner version first. On the other hand, nominator saying that WP:BEFORE is not needed is just lazy and against AGF. I expect someone nominating an article to be sure that their nomination is necessary, not TWINKLE-stamping articles. On that regard, I would not mind TWINKLE including a reminder about BEFORE. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on enforcement The method of enforcement that has always been suggested is by reject those AfDs that show no evidence of following the elements of BEFORE, without prejudice to their reinstatement. I do not think anyone is suggesting anything more drastic. (except perhaps that someone who insists on frequently repeated nominations without any trace of BEFORE, might be considered disruptive, but this has already been the case in certain extreme circumstances). DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - worst example of WP:CREEP imaginable - effectively this gives a licence for wikilawering and will severely discourage good faith nominations of inapproprate, unreferenced or damaging articles because of the implicit threat of punishment if one makes a mistake - which could be as simple as mis-spelling a Google search.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Encouraged and comment - perhaps a statement about whether an AfD nominator took steps to find or verify sources (or whatever) can be included in the Template. Something the Nominator can then attest to, like:

"Before nominating this article for deletion, I took the following steps to ensure this nomination was fully warranted: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (list of various actions taken)."

This would allow other editors to quickly see what steps have already been taken, quite a timesaver. If this is found to be blank, then it is a clear indication it was not followed at all. -- Avanu (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly recommended (but not policy-force) – The community's time is a valuable resource, and before a deletion discussion is started, we need to explore other options before going to that. In general, the first steps are to see what can be done locally before moving up to higher community input, i.e. a deletion discussion. Applying WP:BEFORE is basically "doing one's homework" before going the deletion route. That being said, there are going to be cases in which requesting deletion may be the only viable and reasonable option (the term "polishing a turd" comes to mind) for a variety of reasons; that is where IAR comes into play. –MuZemike 18:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Its policy. That page is a Wikipedia policy page isn't it? They need to start enforcing it though. Stop people from using bots to automatically nominating a hundred biography articles at a time, knowing they couldn't have possibly have looked over each one themselves. And I haven't seen this in awhile, but I previously went through a rather large number of articles people said there were no sources for, and clicked Google News Archive search at the top, and got ample results proving they were. Dream Focus 20:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, its not. BEFORE is part of WP:AFD, which is one of the {{Processes}} pages, not a {{Policy}} page. Some aspects are represented in the WP:Deletion policy, but BEFORE itself is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's policy. The policy doesn't say that someone making a wrong nomination must face "punishment" on the first try, but it should be clear that he has done something the wrong way. Like everything else, it's when it becomes a routine occurrence that it becomes a problem, and eventually, one way or another, he has to be convinced to do the right thing. Bogus AfDs don't just waste one person's time, but many. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BURDEN trumps WP:BEFORE Big but - this project is a (hopefully) collegial community effort. It is courteous, polite, and expected for users to help other users. WP:V is a stricter requirement, and that requirement is not on the person nominating for deletion. Most AfD are short articles and deleting them should be no more dramatic than removing a paragraph or two of recently added but unsourced material to a longer established article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Optional- making it obligatory would open the door to "Speedy keep- nominator hasn't explicitly stated how they followed WP:BEFORE" kinds of bullshit. There's already way too much wikilawyering and attacks on nominators at AfD; we do not need a vehicle for more. As Schmucky says, WP:BURDEN is more important and I oppose any attempt to water it down with artificial roadblocks and obstructionist pettifogging like this. WP:BEFORE is best practice and good advice, but failing to follow it should not be a dealbreaker. Reyk _YO! 01:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional and not required. It would be best practices, but the onus is upon the creator and contributor to the article to demonstrate notability through the use of reliable sources. An article can be nominated for deletion (even speedy) is it does not assert notability and lacks RSs with the nominator not being required to do an exhaustive improvement project before nomination. Basket of Puppies 03:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional, but best practice. Following it preempts some objections and saves other editors' time. This question was asked recently at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#Is this page a policy, guideline, or just a suggestion? (April 2011). If you consider it to be policy, form a consensus to merge into WP:Deletion policy. If it should be a WP:Speedy keep criterion, form a consensus to add it there. Please do not be BOLD, considering that both are minority views here. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by IQ (2nd nomination) (March 2009). Despite a lengthy and thoughtful nomination, two participants cited a failure to meet WP:BEFORE. (I remembered it vaguely and searched for too long nomination prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.) Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good example. This is exactly what I am worried would happen if WP:BEFORE were to be made policy. Reyk _YO! 10:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional, but very good practice (unless you want to look like a fool). JFW | T@lk 10:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this 'optional' business is that it leads to desperately POINTy behaviour; I currently feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall in trying to fathom out why editors deliberately choose not to do WP:BEFORE checks, optional or otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 11:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this issue is really a behavioral one that people want addressed, not a process one. There are editors that I am sure AFD articles all the time without BEFORE, but are well versed in an area, and which results in a closure that is appropriate due to lack of sources, or the discovery of difficult-to-find sources that would not likely be discovered from BEFORE - in otherwords, a completely fair result. These are not the editors that are the issue. It is the ones that nominate for deletion and more often than not, their noms are found as "keep" because sources were readily found. When this happens so many times with an editor, we should be seeking to get this editor to understand what AFD really is, and be prepared to take steps (such as banning him or her from making AFD nominations) if their behavior does not improve. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional. Making it mandatory can only lead to arguments in AfDs about whether procedure has been followed, where the issue should be article content. This whole debate seems to be based on a dubious premise: that it is better to have an unsourced article that 'might' meet notability requirements in article space than no article at all. This attitude might have made sense in the early days of Wikipedia, but the project is now sufficiently mature that we need to emphasise quality more, and put the onus on the article creator to follow 'good practice', and ensure it is fit for inclusion in article space in the first place. If the creator of an article cannot be bothered to make the effort to establish notability, why should others have to do the work for them? Yes, it is 'good practice' to think before starting an AfD, and to do a little checking where practical, but making WP:BEFORE mandatory is effectively licensing laziness by article creators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional, essentially mimicing AndyTheGrump. The important thing to do is to follow WP:V before creating an article: "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There shouldn't be a question of whether the article could be sourced: if it isn't sourced, or is sourced solely on primary sources, it violates WP:V. That's the article creator's problem, not the nominator's. Many of these protestations of "But I could find a million sources with a Google search!" neglect to note that frequently many or all of those results are completely unsuitable for being the basis of an article.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Important, but can't be treated as mandatory because it would be unenforceable. Finding sources is an art, not an exact science, and can require specialized knowledge or access. Therefore, people should not be taking articles to AfD without going through some sort of effort to ascertain that the articles are truly deserving of deletion, but that does not mean that nominators can be castigated for failing to do the kind of insightful research needed to find non-obvious sources. As others have noted, the WP:BURDEN for doing thorough research falls on the article creator or defender. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be obligatory. The number of times nominations are done without checking for sources or considering alternatives to deletion is staggering, and complying with WP:BEFORE would stop many poorly-considered nominations from happening. WP:BEFORE is generally expected other than among lazy deletionists (just because article creators are often lazy it does not mean one should ape them). Fences&Windows 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional, but strongly encouraged. AndyTheGrump is correct on all points. I see no point in making BEFORE mandatory, and I fear the results of doing so. Editors have varying skills and access to potential sources. We will not be able to distinguish someone who made a good faith effort to find sources that do exist and failed from one who did not even try. Warden's notion of supplying encouragement via twinkle is a fine idea, and we should pursue that. If we are to pursue a mechanism to curb the problem of unsourced articles, my suggestion would be to enforce the policy that articles require reliable sources even at their creation. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to use Twinkle, and I'm not sure what its purpose is. My impression is that its some sort of timesaver, but I also see people complain about it making certain things easier than they ought to be. If Wikipedia is too hard to use that you need a bunch of javascript or whatever Twinkle is in order to work it, maybe Wikipedia needs to be reworked. -- Avanu (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a tool, and like any tool, it can be used or abused. I don't mind editing in vim, but scripts are very useful and darn tasty, too. If twinkle disappeared, I'd wind up writing my own stuff to replace it, and if we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we should make things easy to use. The PROD is well done, you choose a menu selection and it prompts for rationale, which I believe is optional. My feeling is that if we dangle a rational text area in front of a user, they are more likely to use it than if they have to manually edit the raw wikiness. You should try it out, you might like it. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'vim' just an expression meaning that you're editing in Wikipedia directly? -- Avanu (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vim (text editor) is an old text editor. All you need to know about it is that it is obviously inferior to any form of Emacs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every sane editor knows that Emacs is the devil because it includes everything and the kitchen sink. Real techies use pico or nano Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, that is a blasphemy of the Church of Emacs and will be cast down to the hedonites by St. Ignucius. –MuZemike 18:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional: Hasteur, GraemeLeggett, Andy, and SchmuckyTheCat express it well here. Editors ought to perform their due diligence, of course, but there is no reason to make this mandatory. I must insert here the page is called "articles for deletion" and not "subjects for deletion" for a reason: If an article could be notable but is in such terrible shape that it needs to be, for all intents and purposes, totally rewritten, than that article is indeed a good candidate for AfD, because the problems can't be fixed with "normal editing" within the reasonable meaning of "Before nominating" number 10. SchmuckyTheCat expressed it perfectly: WP:BURDEN trumps WP:BEFORE. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Required  If random AfDs were good for the encyclopedia, we'd have a bot making more of them.  No, the force of reason applies, a drive-by AfD nomination fails the test of reason, i.e., it is not reasonable.  There is also the problem of enforcement—systems require feedback.  Are there metrics that exist to score the WP:BEFORE quality of an AfD nomination?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Required: I don't see any good reason why you would want to delete a page without ensuring (to the best of your ability) that the page should be deleted. It wastes community time. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Indirectly mandatory. WP:BEFORE is effectively a summary of many other policies and guidelines, including the alternatives to deletion section of the Deletion policy and the try to fix problems section of the Editing policy.

  Willfully not following WP:BEFORE can be seen as disruptive. While a first time offense can result in the swift application of a {{Trout}}, intentionally and repeatedly not following WP:BEFORE can and has resulted in sanctions and blocks, by either the community or ArbCom. More than once when an editor not following WP:BEFORE has ended up in front of ArbCom, they have been admonished or sanctioned for not following best practices. In effect, not following WP:BEFORE is akin to going swimming at a lake or beach where "Swim at your own risk" signs have been prominently posted. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you provide examples? I reviewed the declined Episodes and characters 3 (1, 2), finding two explicit references to WP:BEFORE, one which was in passing. I found none when skimming WP:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 and its subpages. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I know of at least one where two individuals were sanctioned. I'll get back to you later this week on your talk page with the links. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of the tools I think WP:BEFORE should be at the very least habitual procedure prior to deletion. That said, I think deletion has become a lot easier than finding sources due to the tools. Without the tools like TW, dealing with the AFD template, notifying interested editors like the article creator, creating the deletion page, and transcluding the template on the log was a bit of a hassle. Sourcing an article was as hard if not easier than nominating for deletion. In our attempt to make the process easier, we've made the jump to the button easier. While I don't actually suggest getting rid of the tools, perhaps there needs to be some kind of reminder that just because the tools makes nominating for deletion easier doesnt mean that the decision should be made lightly. Perhaps a Wikipedia-wide "no automated tools day"?--v/r - TP 16:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Attack it with an axe As long as wp:BEFORE is a wall of text full of bullshit you can't expect anybody to follow it. Honestly, when is the last time you checked "what links here" before an AFD nomination? Oh, and don't forget you should know notability, reliable sources, what Wikipedia is not. WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB and WP:CLN before nominating anything (Yet the editor who started the article is under no obligation to do likewise!). Cut it down to the essence: 1) do a simple google search for sources if notability is in question, 2) check for recent AFDs and you have something useful, but the current wp:BEFORE is practically useless. Yoenit (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes it should be mandatory in its wording and intent but it should not be enforced by speedy closure or sanctioning the violating editor except in the most repeatred and egregious cases. That makes it in practice optional. It's like listing an AfD on the daily page. It is required for a valid discussion but if the nominator fails to so so for whatever reason someone else will do it for you. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional but strongly recommended per User:WhatamIdoing. Not following WP:BEFORE does not invalidate an AFD, and an article may be deletable even if alternate outcomes haven't been considered. However, even though BEFORE isn't required directly, the nominator has a clear responsibility to avoid silly and disruptive AFDs, whether it is from malice (in which case it can be handled as vandalism) or ignorance (which is not vandalism, but may be disruptive all the same). If an editor can't be bothered to consider alternatives, and rushes ahead with a silly and avoidable AFD nomination, he has only himself to blame. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - If we do require WP:BEFORE, what do we do if this requirement is not followed? Does the AfD follow its normal, ~7 day, course? Is it shut down immediately? Is the editor warned or get a certain number of 'strikes'? What happens if the nominator is just genuinely bad at finding references? I think it's important when creating a rule/law/policy/guideline to consider how it will be enforced and how the resources required to enforce compare to the resources currently in use to deal with the issue (assuming there is one). Also, are we sure that there's a problem to be solved or are we creating policy to make a point? Personally, I think that everyone should be checking but I'm not sure that requiring people to is worth the resources required to enforce such a policy (having editors patrol AfDs for nominations that have no proof that any reference searches have been made). OlYeller^Talktome 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer, well okay, my answer. If a given user doesn't follow WP:BEFORE and it's really obvious (book or news search turns up good sources on the first page) we ask the user if they did follow WP:BEFORE and if they didn't we point it out to them. If they say they did, we point out how to better find sources. If a given user continues to nominate articles without following WP:BEFORE we warn them and if it continues we start a discussion at WP:AN to ban them from XfD for a month or two. I'm not asking that we beat the heck out of people. I'm saying we _should_ expect people to look for sources before filing an XfD. People will make mistakes, that's not a problem. Newbies won't do it, and that's fixable. But the fundemental idea is folks _should_ be doing this so as not to waste other's time.Hobit (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it isn't the intention, what this will mean is that you will get people patroling AfD trying to get people who nominate articles (or possibly even vote for deletion), whether good faith or not, blocked. This will not improve the quality or depth of debate or the overall quality articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we have someone very frequently nomming notable articles, and that person refuses to make even a small effort to see whether the subject is notable before wasting the community's time on the nomination—or someone systematically nomming our quarter-million {{unref}}-tagged articles to make a WP:POINT or to use AFD as a lever to motivate article clean up—then blocking might be an appropriate way for the community to protect itself from disruption. In routine cases, I don't think that blocking over a couple of failed nominations is at all likely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither handcuffs, nor an excuse - Is it absolutely mandatory to follow WP:BEFORE for every single article? No. Some articles clearly don't belong. That said, if you're throwing up CSD:A7 templates on half a dozen articles in 10 minutes and you justify yourself by saying WP:BEFORE is optional, then you're an asshat and you need to be slapped. If you're nomming articles for deletion after looking at the first page of a google search, especially if the article is on a foreign subject whose notability will likely not be apparent through an english search, then you're an asshat who needs to be slapped. We have wikiprojects and polyglottal editors to take care of these things. If you can't determine a subject's notability, then slap a category on the article and let someone else figure it out. Similarly, the lack of sources on a brand new article is not indicative of non-notability. Give it time. Add it to an "unsourced new articles" queue in your userspace and check back in a week. There's no rush. No prize for nomming the most articles except the Asshat Cup and the aforementioned slap. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The thing is, there are people who have a history of wasting other users' time with nominations they clearly haven't researched at all. For those people, WP:BEFORE is mandatory. There are also users who consistently show good judgment, and for those users, WP:BEFORE is optional or in some cases totally unnecessary. The problem with this discussion is that users who don't show good judgment are never conscious of their own unwisdom or immaturity. My advice is, if you don't get "delete" outcomes from at least 80% of your AfD nominations, then you aren't yet ready to disregard WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Guideline best sums up where it is. The people who've cited WP:BURDEN above as a counterpoint to WP:BEFORE have failed to understand either. WP:BURDEN makes it easy to remove a particular claim, as it should be. WP:BEFORE makes it hard to remove an entire article, again, as it should be. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional, but some of it is common sense - The real problem here here are users, particularly the ones of an WP:ARS bent, who use WP:BEFORE like a cudgel in XfDs to berate the nominator or those who may !vote delete. Some even use it to try to call for speedy keeps. That is the junk that needs to stop. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a recent example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google's hoaxes (2nd nomination) — failure to follow before; call for speedy keep; nominator withdraws. If WP:BEFORE had been followed more carefully then TPH would have been spared some embarrassment and AFD would have been spared some clutter. Warden (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional but recommended. To make it required would be instruction creep and may lead to gaming of the system. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of WP:BEFORE already is policy. ' WP:Deletion Policy#Alternatives to deletion is policy, and includes the statement "the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Adding references is improving the article. WP:BEFORE can be regarded as an expansion and a explanation of the practical meaning of this, just as WP:RS is an expansion and a explanation of the practical meaning of WP:V. Just as we need WP:RS, so we need WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the difference that WP:RS is (a) actively linked to from WP:V and (b) has been actively and explicitly described as a policy or guideline. Your similes don't mesh. Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If BEFORE is mandatory policy then you've declared unsourced stubs immune to WP:V. There is no objection to removing unsourced paragraphs from established articles, but once you remove all the unsourced content from a stub the article is blanked - deleted. BEFORE values process and deliberate publication of unsourced potential misinformation to a world wide audience over our readers trust. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I do not think any one is suggesting that BEFORE be mandatory policy, rather that at least the basic elements of it be a required procedural guideline. The reason it is unsuitable as policy is the same reason WP:RS is unsuitable as policy: it involves too many exceptions and special cases, and needs to be applied with judgement, not blindly, As for the technique of deleting an article by the gradual removal of content without any attempt to improve it or source it, I've said what I think elsewhere often enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article didn't have a source I'd say delete it regardless of BEFORE. It says things that most readers could not and would not be able to source. Slightly changing the information, or leaving it without the sourced information, could be lethal as it may look like a designer drug analogue. That's why it's not the job of those proposing deletion to provide sources. After several years all the unsourced BLP, spam, hoaxes, and other crap I've seen laying around WP while AfD dawdles on a resolution have pushed me almost to the point of thinking lack of sourcing should be a CSD criteria all by itself.

BTW, I didn't say gradual removal, I said stubs. There isn't enough material to gradually remove it. The equivalent material in an established article would be reverted without question but a user writing a new article with the same material gets a week on AfD. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, then you might like to actually go read the content policies. There are only four types of statements that actually require sources: contentious matter about BLPs, direct quotations, stuff that's been WP:CHALLENGEd, and stuff that you think is actually, in practice, WP:LIKELY to be challenged. Nothing in that four-sentence stub is about BLPs, none of it is a direct quotation, none of it has been challenged, and none of it seems to me like anyone is likely to bother challenging it. In the absence of these four conditions, citations are (very) nice, but not actually required. Unreferenced articles are not prohibited. (Bad idea, yes. Prohibited, no.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't think anyone is suggesting WP:BEFORE is mandatory policy, you should probably read the section above this one. You know, all the people declaring in bold "IT'S POLICY". Things like that are a slight hint. Suggesting that what renders something unsuitable to be considered policy is exceptions and loopholes is to make the common mistake of thinking that policy = law. Policy is a guide to best practise, and there being situations where what is normally best practise doesn't apply is about as surprising as the Pontiff being head of the Church of Rome. Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nullity: if you're not going to enforce it, it does not exist. we now have the spectacle of mass deletions of synagogues, since mass deletion of BLP's was withing admin "discretion". this speedy, prod, AfD article by the score and ticking time bomb, is not a productive quality improvement process: better to institute teams. how long will it be, until the article count starts declining? by increasing the scrap rate do you increase quality? the sanction should be mandatory civility transplant, i.e. mandatory civility programmed instruction, with a passing grade. i note DGG, that noone is listening to you. i nominate DGG to be instructor: he has ways of making you civil. Slowking4 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you rewrite that and post it in the English language please? If nobody is listening to DGG it seems rather silly to put him in a role which would require people to actually pay attention to and agree with his comments. Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in English, if you want an ambiguity in it clarified then I'd suggest a polite note to Slowking on his talkpage rather than such hyperbole. As for your suggestion that nobody listens to DGG, I'm sure you are aware that DGG is highly respected (except perhaps by some of the most hardline deletionists). I for one certainly pay attention to his views, usually agree with him and especially in this case "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Of course there some exceptions to that such as G3 and G10, nobody is arguing that badfaith contributions be given the same courtesy as goodfaith ones. But we are here to write an encyclopaedia not to delete it, and it is important that editors treat deletion as a last resort rather than a first recourse. Sometimes I see "editors" whose contributions include whole screens of prods, speedy tags and the notifications thereof with out even the barest attempt to wikify, categorise or even fix typos in those articles, or even in the intervening articles they have come across in their patrolling. In some cases the tags are so close together they can't have had the time to check if the article has just been vandalised let alone make a serious attempt to source it. In the very worst cases I've come across taggers whose prods assert an attempt to source articles even though a Google search will easily find sources. Of course an editor who sources lots of articles may still on the odd occasion miss an obvious source, but there is a humongous difference between an isolated mistake by an editor who clearly does try to improve articles, and a tagger who makes multiple such mistakes or even the badfaith one of claiming they've looked for sources when they haven't. ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, WereSpielChequers, before you accuse me of hyperbole and saying nobody listens to DGG, note that my comment was simply a reply to SlowKing's statement, on this issue, that "i note DGG, that noone is listening to you". If you have a problem with that statement I would suggest upbraiding him rather than me. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • i will gladly take the moniker hyperbole-king: (noone). but, look at his talkpage, the disregard for his reason dosen't inspire confidence; he has a balanced approach to deletion which falls on deaf ears. i agree with WereSpielChequers, it's the abusive deletions that are objectionable. hope you enjoyed the circularity: an upward spiral of listening to DGG, beats a downward spiral of deletion drama. Slowking4 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He/she means that since we don't enforce WP:BEFORE, it has no effect, i.e., it is a "legal invalidity"; and that we are now at a rate of deletion that he/she wonders when the deletion rate will exceed the creation rate of new articles; and that the deletion process would be better as a quality improvement process if replaced with quality teams; and that since we work without quality standards, we don't actually know that deleting articles increases the quality of the encyclopedia.  Also, that we should respect DGG and give him/her a title of teacher.  Also that civility should be given metrics and thereby enforced, so that editors that use words such as some of those in the previous comment would get low marks, negative feedback, and maybe sent to the DGG school for civility.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

chapeau, better than i could have said. in addition, mass deletion is systematic abuse of the deletion process which includes before, deserving of sanction. DGG was beginning to undo deletions without a reason; mass deletions deserve the same undoing. it is also unprofessional, (beneath a minimum standard of conduct).

online training is well established, with grades and tracking. therefore: suggest, enforce training in required subjects: human resource management, library science, quality control. a higher standard of behavior.

i see above and it's widely held that unreferenced articles should be deleted: "That's why it's not the job of those proposing deletion to provide sources." but i agree with DGG, the proper response to an unsourced article is to source it, not delete it. the sourcing policy was overdue, but incomplete without a plan to implement it on all the existing articles. the sooner we stop the wiki drama, and build the teams to work the backlog, the sooner we will have a better quality wiki. Slowking4 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with DGG - again, he's shown that he's a wise Jedi master. WP:BEFORE is a guideline, but based on the cited policy. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Required or at least strongly encouraged. People put a lot of work into contributing articles, and rather than discourage them with AFD, it should be required to check up on the article a little more, and see if it is really should be. It should not be easier to delete a page than to add it. Wxidea (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - perhaps steps prior to AfD should be stressed, eg tagging with template:notability and template:unreferenced to give an opportunity for someone else to fix the issue. Then if noone comes out of the woodwork, or if attempts to fix the issue are still not up to scratch, take it to AfD. Some of the drama of AfD is that once the nomination is seen a whole slew of defenders turn up who hadn't been aware of the problem with the article in the first place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Encouraged or required - much of WP:BEFORE is duplicated by the editing policy, and a good-faith effort to follow WP:BEFORE would dramatically reduce the amount of fixable nominations, which would free up AFD for more truly liminal cases. On the other hand, if the nominator is not familiar with the subject or the potential sources usable, even if they applied BEFORE, some fixable nominations would still get through. --Malkinann (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not required - although I probably agree with majority of those commenting as to the steps that should be taken before deletion. As some have tried to point out here, however, an attempt to strictly enforce WP:BEFORE in its current form is doomed to failure, because even good editors rarely will take all of the steps listed before nominating an article, and in the vast majority of cases, such a burden is unreasonable. I fully agree that editors have a duty to carefully look for sourcing before nominating an article for deletion, and I can probably support that editors who routinely ignore this step be sanctioned by being unable to nominate articles. But I can't see the point in have a "best practice" that even our best editors don't actually practice. It should be enough to state that any nomination for deletion should detail the nominator's attempt to source the article to give voters and closers information to evaluate the request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Required would be my preference BEFORE part 4 for AfD/PROD, as a guideline, as per arguments by DGG, WSC, etc. I interpret "good faith" as not being "every outlet possible over months", but at minimum the usual array of Google searches (Gw, Gna, Gb, Gs), something on the other of "3-10 minutes", not "3-10 days" of research. I note that it was explicitly made *not* a requirement of BLPPROD, and while I have mixed feelings about that, right now I net to being sympathetic to leaving that as is. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure we'd like to come to some sort of consensus, I picked a article from the back of the New Page Patrol Backlog, The Black Book (TV programme) and applied the criteria to it. I put my statement evaluating the criteria on the talk page. What would have taken me perhaps 5 minutes took 30 to do. Obviously some things are a judgement call, but if we're going to put full force behind WP:BEFORE, let's go through the motions of applying the criteria without needing to do it to see if this is really a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another take in the same direction.  This is based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia):

Unscintillating (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes; I find analysis based on a single example interpreted and selected by somebody with a clearly biased opinion on the subject to be simply de rigueur for accuracy. Ironholds (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any examples and objective evidence that provide constructive feedback.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent about 8 man-hours today in researching the topic and improving the article.  Given that a redirect does not require an AfD discussion, my analysis here is that there was never a possibility that this material was subject to deletion.  A plausible argument could be made to create a List of Jewish congregations in Portsmouth, with this material merged there, but the place for this conversation is on the talk page of Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia).  Note that the nominator is now pursuing a deletion review which by coincidence happens to be about Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 28.

Possible improvements:

• Point 4, expand to include Gnews and Gscholar.
• Point 5, expand to include Delete, and restore redirect
• New points: how long did it take to prepare the AfD nomination, and how long has the nominator been working on the article.

Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that nomination is only 1/2 of deletion but where would the following fit in. Based on a quick guess from going through random articles, I'm guessing that there are about 1,000,000 stub and short articles on cities, towns, provinces, obscure species species of plants and animals where the ability to meet wp:notability is presumed and probable, but it has not been established in the article. And most of these articles would have no "defender". Something to protect them from mass mindless AFD nomination would be good. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They would survive AFD so not sure why your suggesting or what the point would be If you nominated lots they would end up being speedy kept and you'd get lots of comments about WP:before. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they would survive a challenge. Notability has never required that an article contain even one citation. We only require that WP:Independent sources have been WP:Published on the subject.

We don't have an actual problem with people trying to delete these articles, so we don't really need something to protect them. If we develop this problem, then we have mechanisms in place to handle it. Among our "defenses" are deletion sorting (which calls articles to the attention of people who are interested in, and usually familiar with notability standards for, a general subject) and blocking editors for disruptive nominations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if some brave soul might summarize the above discussion to the optional or required nature of WP:BEFORE? Basket of Puppies 04:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading, there's a general consensus that BEFORE should be guideline-ish. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems about right to me. There also seems to be some disagreement about the meaning of "should". --Nuujinn (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A late thought, but why is it that we've set up this system so that the burdon doesn't lie on the editors creating the articles? I personally believe we've come to the point where a new article should NOT be created unless it is sourced and longer than three sentences. Now before a bunch of people jump in and say "but some of our best work came from progressive adaptations on what may have originally been a three sentence stub. If a two sentence article is created, with no refs, and three sentences, then it should be the creator's obligation to go find sources when someone prods or AfDs the thing, and not the person that looks at it and says "this is terrible, why do we have this?" Articles must indicate their notability and be verifiable as per our core policies; nominating for deletion shouldn't put the backwards onus on you, the nominator. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently the burden is they could be sourced if challenged. Everyday there are many new article created that are completely unsourced, here is a selection of them:User:AlexNewArtBot/URTBLPSearchResult (Unsourced at time of last bot run and may later be sourced, although checking at randon most of them are not, BLPs being the exception). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • hell no. increasing the hurdle rate for new articles does not increase article quality; rather, institute training of new editors. it does nothing for the backlog problem; rather institute stub improvement teams. putting the onus on the nominator to follow the deletion process including before is consensus. enforcing hurdles, merely makes work for admins to delete articles, and tagspan editors; better to train the editors to produce better work. Slowking4: 7@1|x 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...*coughs* WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Silverseren^C 10:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed change Currently the WP:BEFORE is part of the procedure for AfD, so whether it is policy or not it will certainly be read as policy by most people. So the question is whether the wording should be changed to so make it read as a recommendation rather than rules that must be followed. As a rule it's pretty wishy-washy and unenforceable, plus good-faith is supposed to be assumed already and making a rule that requires people to make a "good-faith effort" seems to assume that people would act in bad-faith if there wasn't a rule against it. In addition, the AfD process is painful enough without the WP:BEFORE club to beat people with. (I have a few lumps from it myself.) On the other hand making it read as optional may mean that articles that could obviously be fixed by editing will go to AfD instead, so no pain avoidance there. To me, WP:BURDEN comes from WP:Verifiability, one of the WP:Core content policies, while WP:BEFORE is a civility issue, basically saying "don't waste people's time or harass people with spurious AfD's." Both seem equally important so it makes no sense to try to make a blanket ruling on which trumps the other. So the change I would propose is to include at the top of the section:

"The following steps should be completed before nominating an article for deletion. This is to ensure AfD nominations are made appropriately and that they conform to Wikipedia policies of WP:Civility."

I have used the word "should" instead of "must" here, which is the core of the whole previous discussion. But I think the interpretation is the correct one in that an editors who decide not to follow these steps have taken upon themselves the responsibility for ensuring the AfD nomination is appropriate and civil. In other words replace the "No Swimming" sign with "Swim at your own risk".

I'd also like the WP:BEFORE club to be added to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If an AfD seems spurious then say why in your Keep comment, if you are correct then the nominator will hopefully realize the mistake and know better next time. Denigrating comments such as "The nom obviously didn't follow WP:BEFORE," really don't help anyone.--RDBury (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain to me why file size/storage seems to be a frequent topic of conversation? As far as I can tell, it seems that Wikipedia's storage is practically unlimited; I'm sure it has its limits, but could someone please provide some information on this that will help me to understand the need for frugality, if, indeed, it is necessary? Finite numbers would be great. Thanks.--Jp07 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the concern is mainly the size of each article being displayed, as just too, too much text and data, especially when viewed on a handheld device/cellphone. There is no concern having more than 4 million articles: Wikimedia Commons has 10 million images/audios. However, there are many size issues to consider (such as the size of images on a page). For each large article, there are obviously huge areas of text: those bottom navboxes (often more than 9 boxes of "creeping linkerism"), or hundreds of sources (even on major articles which have "90" subarticles to cite sources), or a list of "Further reading" with "40" books. For example, the popular huge article "United States" (viewed 45,240 times per day, ~2000 times per hour in June 2011) has 17 bottom navboxes, totalling hundreds of rare wikilinks. Plus, the U.S. article has 217(!) footnotes, when almost every phrase of text is verifiably covered within thousands of other articles about U.S. topics (which cite those sources). So, 45,000 people a day are spammed with those 17 navboxes and 217 references, as if it were a stand-alone printed volume about the U.S. rather being than a wikilinked page, with thousands of articles to clarify all the extraneous details. For those reasons, where common sense fails, then guidelines can be written to curb the gargantuan techno-data, and then reduce a highly popular article to a condensed, but broad, summary of the topic, knowing other less-viewed articles can prove sources and display 64-question navboxes about every known aspect of minutia for a popular sub-topic. Without rules to limit all the overkill of techno-data, an article such as "U.S." takes about 30 seconds to fully format and display all the tedious stuff which only 1-in-500 readers would bother to read. Then, get this, many articles are reformatted for most of the readers, to apply preferences settings for the display of the text and images. That is probably a major reason people often see, during busy hours, "WP:Wikimedia Foundation error" as the servers are overloaded in displaying tedious gobs of "tramp data" which is of little value to the readers. Stats show that most readers view a page for only 1 minute, then move on to other pages: hence, an article should show the key concepts in the top paragraphs, with well-chosen images to convey the subject fast. All of these issues are reasons to set guidelines to limit the data displayed to readers, especially when trying to view pages on small handheld devices. Hence, there is the Mobile Wikipedia to display articles for those users. Editors using handheld devices report that editing is very difficult, so they wait until using a laptop or desktop PC. The whole situation is an optimization task: where operation can be radically streamlined, once the customer "needs" are monitored as a major focus. A computer system can run "10x times faster" by optimizing out all the unneeded pork in each area. That is a simplified view of the size issues. -Wikid77 09:02, 2 July 2011, revised 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the explanation.--Jp07 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Good explanation Wikid77. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that a lot of people think block notices are not necessary all the time (particularly if an user is moving on or sitting the block out), but there's an unresolved question.

There was a recent case where a disruptive IP was requesting an unblock but removing the specific diffs which were relevant to why the block was imposed. This resulted in a problem because we were sending off reviewing admins to look through a contributions history to identify what was already clearly listed on the user talk. (The IP's block expired and the lack of administrator intervention led to the need for the Community to, in an unprecedented move, vote on a Community ban to address the IP. This did not reflect well on any of the admins patrolling at the time.) Things can become even more problematic in other situations, such as times where there is off-wiki evidence, and other pertinent information which is not readily obvious to others, cannot be expanded in the block log entry. This can also occur at times where all of the information was not written in the rationale initially (eg; it was included later but removed by the editor on the basis that they're permitted to remove anything from their talk page).

And as for admins who should be desysopped, the Community should already be fully aware of how many hoops it needs to jump through to effectuate a desysop. Where genuine disruption is being prevented, should we manage the risk of genuine disruption occurring where misleading unblock requests are made and relevant information being removed?

My question is this: if the user is requesting an unblock while the block is in force, should they be allowed to remove relevant information which did not fit into the block log entry? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state first of all that I have a very narrow view of what blocked users should be allowed to do while their block is active. However, I also recognize my view is not the consensus view, so what we need to do instead is to come up with alternate means of solving the problem, while still working within the consensus view that blocked users may blank their own talk page. They cannot, however, blank your talk page, hmmm? So pragmatically, there are ways to preserve evidence if the user refuses to leave it on their talk page. Just leave the diffs on your talk page, or perhaps on the talk page of the blocking and/or reviewing admin. Though some people believe that a user would be instantly unblocked (in error) if a reviewing admin is faced with a blank user talk page, I seriously don't know a single administrator who would do that. Indeed, at minimum, every admin is supposed to at least contact the blocking administrator for input in undoing any block. Let me say that again: there is no impending disaster coming to the Wikipedia should a blocked user blank their talk page or remove diffs to their disruption, or anything else for that matter. Admins aren't stupid and careless, and we check on these things. If keeping a record of things is important for you, there are workarounds that don't involve using the blocked user's talk page. --Jayron32 20:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any wording regarding "relevant information" should be included in WP:BLANKING; instead, common sense should apply on a case-by-case basis. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very strongly emphasised this point about common sense and case-by-case basis, but a lack of a clear guideline on this point will be a source of unnecessary disputes in the future and will cause a mockery (especially in cases where the sanctioned user is not an established one). In the case I referred to above, the IP threatened to take that admin to ArbCom over this sort of pettiness. I don't intend on letting agenda-driven single-purpose-disruptive users to make yet another mockery by exposing the vulnerabilities of this site and the lack of clear guidance on what each user thinks they should be entitled to. My other primary concern is that there is a "limited resources" issue (one of the reasons the Community banned that IP and one of the stated considerations for why an admin was recently not desysopped). If there's a willingness for workarounds that do not waste resources unnecessary, I'm all for it (but I have not seen anything like this emerge in practice so far; this seems more theoretical than anything). While I've given admins as much of the benefit of the doubt as sanctioned users, there are certainly users out there who won't agree with Jayron's second last sentence based on their own unpleasant experiences (which although may have been occasional in the grand scheme of things, is critical seeing it is they who were adversely affected in one form or another more than the admins in question). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic, but I find your comment about "off wiki evidence" quite disturbing. What exactly is this "off wiki" evidence of which you speak? Are you saying that the wikipedia management and bureaucracy is collecting "evidence" on us, like DNA, fingerprints, photographs, electronic surveillance, or intercepted email? Where is this information being stored and how can us regular users take a look at it? Is there a file on me somewhere? I would like some clarification on this. Brad Wingo (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details will obviously vary from case to case but one example I have seen was a chat room on another website being used by several newly registered users to coordinate efforts to write a hoax article. Even after the URL was listed in the block summaries it took the better part of a day before the pranksters realized that several Wikipedia admins were reading the chat to learn what new stunts the pranksters were planning. Sometimes you will be amazed at what a quick search engine test can turn up. --Allen3 ^talk 23:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they shouldn't remove stuff while they are still asking for an unblock. But we don't need a special rule for this; that's instruction creep. This is simple common sense and standard talk page etiquette: You don't remove pertinent parts of a discussion while the discussion is still ongoing. If you are requesting an unblock, then everything that led up to it, including the block notice, is part of the pertinent discussion context. If a blocked user has removed such stuff, simply reinstate it: most blocked editors will be clever enough to figure out that it's not a good idea to revert-war against the admin you want to get an unblock from. In special cases like the disruptive IP alluded to above, if a user actually insists on removal while still ostensibly requesting unblocks, that's just a sign of trolling and disruptive wikilawyering, and the clearest sign the user ought to stay blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it's generally fairly obvious when removing stuff is disruptive, and it should be handled accordingly. One option is to make use of the new facility to annotate the block log: basically, create the page User:Example/Blocklogannotation (can be protected if necessary) and its contents will show up when someone goes to Special:Block/Example. Rd232 public ^talk 08:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some users think a block notice is a scar on user-talk: I tend to leave my block notices, in place on my talk-page, to get a better sense of the suffering imposed on blocked users; however, many users want to hide them, as if removing a posted insult, and that seems reasonable. I have advised, "No one cares about your wiki-reputation" but there are some who do, without considering this is a volunteer project, of misguided judgments by novices (no one is a "certified" WP-expert judge). The last time I was blocked, I was on wikibreak, so I tried to make the wikibreak-notice be seen as the more obvious note, to users who wanted to contact me. Plus, the block notices, as left in place, help to decode the unfair blocks, by noting the surrounding messages. What I learned is that the block-log constitutes a form of "multiple jeopardy" where future "punishment" is increased based on prior blocks, so a user should have unfair blocks expunged (ya right) to avoid massive punishments in the future. The reality is that having a block log cleared is very difficult, so the knee-jerk sanctions at WP:ANI add up to be "gunnysacking" of negative information. Hence, I have advocated changing to a more professional system of total demerits, offset by earned merits, where a person is sanctioned with multiple demerits, which can add up to a block, or earn positive merits which reduce the demerits, such as 100 demerits for a noted WP:NPA attack, but 50 merits for a clear apology for the attack. A person's log would be an NPOV-balanced record of negative-offset-by-positive demerits/merits, and no longer a "mark of shame" used to crucify a user. WP is currently designed as a hate-mongering system, which ignores the massive accomplishments of many editors, and instead, treats them like worthless trash, kicked down by the self-appointed elite class. This situation is not news, but changing a user-log to include positive, as well as scarring, comments would help reduce the slanted view being forced into block-logs. Some former vandals have become very productive, positive editors, no longer putting jokes in articles, but their block-logs likely tell a different story. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely the purpose of a block notice is to inform the user that they're blocked and should be treated in the same way as removal of warnings—evidence that the message has been read and understood. Any admin considering an unblock request will make the two clicks to find the block notice in the history in case there's anything in it that would affect the request. I'm not sure how the guideline came to be how it is (last time I read it, you could remove anything except declined unblock requests), but I always thought the principle was essentially "is this worth starting an edit war over"? If someone removes a notice, it does no harm, but you can bet your bottom dollar someone will restore it "because the guideline says you can't do that". Then we have an edit war, which benefits nobody. So I would say the guideline should go back to the way it was and users should be allowed to remove what they like from their own talk page, with the exception of unblock requests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do agree that anyone intentionally removing the particular diffs showing why they are blocked while in the meantime attempting to get their block reviewed and removed has shown they are not mature enough to be unblocked. Should this mean we should encode this into policy or guideline? Probably not, because this would be down the slippery slope to one day making it "illegal" for anyone to remove a block from their talk page. Maybe if it was worded such as–"If you are attempting to get your block reviewed please do not edit the block. This is to ensure a proper review is entailed with no prejudice. Block removal may be denied solely based on editor tampering with the block and not based on the true merits of the case. If you are not appealing the block then you may delete the block notice from your talk page and wait out the period of your block." Would anyone disagree if this was included in policy?Camelbinky (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It sounds unnecessary to have any more rules on this to me. If evidence is removed from talk pages it makes it that much harder for someone to consider an unblock request, so makes it less likely for a requestor to be unblocked. So removing talk page messages is just another way to soil your own nest. The benefit of the doubt is not the same as acting from ignorance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun going through a large number of articles and attempting to remove those "In popular culture" sections that are just big disjointed lists of unsourced, unencylopedic trivia. Soon after I had started several users came in behind me, and began reverting, saying that they could find sources for the trivia items.

However, my main issue with these sections was not simply that there are no sources for the material. The primary issue is that these sections are just a big blob of unencyclopedic trivia, and/or are contained in articles on topics which have not had a significant enough impact on popular culture to warrant such a section in the first place.

I've never seen an encyclopedia that has a big list of trivial "This appeared in Episode 3 of a Super Mario Brothers TV series" references. Since we are purportedly trying to write an encyclopedia, I don't think we should compile big lists of pop trivia in our articles (with the exception of "List of pop culture references to ..." articles). What I would like to propose is that this type of garbage is removed from the encyclopedia altogether, en masse, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Only topics that have had a significant impact on popular culture, as evidenced by the existence of sources that review their broader cultural impact should have an "In popular culture" section (better still a "Cultural significance" section, so we don't end up with a load of cartoon references). Samurai or Vampire are examples of topics that warrant "In popular culture" sections, due to the fact that works have been written on their broader impact on popular culture. I'm not talking about newspaper article that make passing mention of some anime character dressing up as a samurai, or that you fight vampires in level 7 of some video game. I'm talking about sources that discuss the significance of these topics in popular culture in general (in film, literature, etc.).

Whole-body transplant (one of the articles that someone reverted me on, saying he would find sources for its trivia) is not worthy of such a section, because no sources talk about the cultural impact of this topic. Yes, you can find pop-culture trivia about whole-body transplants for which reliable sources exists to back the individual trivia items. But Wikipedia is not a random collection of factoids. It's an encyclopedia. The article whole-body transplant does not warrant an "In popular culture" section, because it has not had a significant enough impact on popular culture that reliable sources talk about this impact. Adding an "In popular culture" section here would be analogous to adding a "Fashion" section to Diane Sawyer's article because a few random sources have commented on what a pretty dress she was wearing. Yes, I can find sources talking about her clothes. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to create a section that contains a list of random comments about her wardrobe. I don't feel like this sort of thing is fitting for an encyclopedia.

What I propose is an addition to WP:INDISCRIMINATE regarding "In popular culture" sections that states something along the lines of this:

4. Random lists of pop culture trivia: The only time an article warrants the inclusion of an "In popular culture" section is when reliable sources exist which describe the overall impact that the subject has had on popular culture (or some important subset of pop-culture such as film, literature, etc.). Just because you can find a source for a trivial pop-culture reference to the topic, does not mean that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a collection of disjointed pop culture references (consider making a list article of pop-culture references to the topic, if there are enough of them), it is an encyclopedia. Articles should discuss the broader cultural impact of the topic in a manner similar to other encyclopedias. If no sources exist describing the broader cultural impact of the topic, then the article should not have a section on cultural impact.

This is poorly written, and surely has many flaws -- but I'm just slapping it together here as something to get the discussion started. Is there anyone who would have objections to adding something like this? Trivial "In pop culture" sections are a plague that affects thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of articles on Wikipedia, and are one of the single largest sources of unsourced, unencyclopedia material. I think that adding something like this into policy would go a long way towards fixing this problem. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all old news - and wheel re-invention for years there were debates about this - and it is why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Popular_Culture exists.

viz: (1) WikiProject Popular Culture aims to preserve "In popular culture" and "Trivia"-type information in Wikipedia in a manner that does not compromise Wikipedia's core principles or its quality. - and noting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Popular_Culture#Information_salvage.

And who or how can anyone from any one culture determine significance without massive edit wars?

And only culturally significant topics should have "Cultural impact" sections. - can be quite a tricky issue SatuSuro 08:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"And who or how can anyone from any one culture determine significance without massive edit wars?": One can determine significance by when you find a reliable source that claims that it is culturally significant, or talks about the wide impact it has had in art, literature, film, etc.

WikiProject Popular Culture aims to preserve "In popular culture" and "Trivia"-type information in Wikipedia in a manner that does not compromise Wikipedia's core principles or its quality. ... note the bolded part. Random lists of trivia are both compromising core principles (giving undue weight to trivia, for example) and seriously detract from its quality, which is why you will never see such junk in real encyclopedia (or just about any serious reference or scholarly work for that matter). ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't feel that such sections belong, but they have a pretty well-established precedent on-wiki. If you wanted to ban them you'd have to get it through an RfC. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there certainly is a precedent, but it's not based in policy. Rather, it's based on a bunch of users who don't understand our policies going around and inserting lists of trivia into articles (frequently without sources). Then other users to see them and say "Oooh, I can add Pokemon trivia to the article on Taoism". You very quickly end up with the nightmare we have now, with thousands of unsourced trivia lists containing absurd TV show and song references that don't belong in an encyclopedia article. I certainly plan to file an RFC, but before I did so, I was just curious if anyone had any objections that actually addressed problems that might be caused by the policy amendment I suggested besides (a) "Some people like random collections of trivia" and (b) "There are a lot of them and have been for a long time". ~ Mesoderm (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Do entries in such a list need sourcing if they refer to articles which are themselves sourced? It seems overkill to remove (for instance) a reference to the film adaptation "Misery" from Misery (novel) as you did just because it appeared in a list called "In popular culture". I think some other criteria should apply rather than simply removing such lists. Stephenb (Talk) 09:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StephenB: You are correct, my removal of that particular piece from Misery (novel) was a mistake (I did not remove it because it appeared in a section called "In popular culture". I was working too quickly, and the fact that it was buried in a load of garbage caused me to accidentally overlook it). However, it does not belong in a "In popular culture" section (considering that the entire article is about something "in popular culture") but should rather be integrated into the article. Regardless, it was a mistake on my part to remove it. But I'm sure that the few mistakes I made in removing these dozens of overwhelmingly unsourced, and completely unencyclopedic trivia lists are far outweighed by the benefits of me removing them. And that said, my points regarding these lists in general still stand. My error on Misery (novel), and any other errors I've made, have no bearing on my arguments above. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, StephenB, the issue is not whether each trivia item cites a source. The issue is whether or not encyclopedia articles should contain lists of random trivia (sourced or not). I don't think that random lists of trivia belong in encyclopedia articles. One reason that I do not think they belong is that I have seen dozens of encyclopedias, and not a single one contains random lists of South Park trivia. Another is that it is giving undue weight to trivia, which is a violation of a core policy WP:NPOV. And another is that things like having a paragraph about Pokemon in an article on Taoism seriously detracts from the credibility of the encyclopedia, making it look like a joke. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of trivia are to be avoided in our articles. In accordance with WP:TRIVIA, relevant bits of information should be relocated to other parts of the article where they fit best. Bits of information that aren't relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject should be removed (and entire irrelevant sections blanked, if need be). So Mesoderm, you are doing a good service here. Thanks for going through and cleaning these articles up. Throwaway, I don't see why you are interfering with this valuable cleanup effort. Trivia sections have been actively discouraged for several years now and it is the goal of the (largely dead) Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup as well as the trivia cleanup template to bring the remaining sections under control. ThemFromSpace 09:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unsourced lists per se are not good, but neither do I agree with blanket removal which swept up sourced material as well. Also, some of the subjects removed were quite notable. In any case, I have recommended to Mesoderm to give some of us a bit of time to try and source material rather than get in yet another tiring delete/include cycle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to StephenB above. The issue is not just about unsourced lists (although these are, of course, worse and more common than sourced lists). The issue is about whether we should have lists of trivia at all whether or not they have sources. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't include random lists of Family Guy and Star Wars trivia in their articles, ever. Take a look at what I'm suggesting we add to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the thrust of Mesoderm's argument. We are not supposed to have any "trivia" sections in articles, let alone stuff like "Foo Heavy Rock Band sing about Little Snodding in the 3rd track on their 5th album". --Bermicourt (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoderm, have you ever been in a university library and see the depth of which discourse gets to on all sorts of subjects? There exist loads of material which doesn't necessarily need to be binned because you haven't heard of it or have not seen a source (but looks like there should/would be one). In any case, if you want to armwrestle over this issue for the umpteenth time you'll be expending alot of effort. Yes optimally we can find covering statements and analyses of themes of pop culture material but that may not always be the case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of mentions of an article's subject appearing in popular culture without explanation as to why they are notable instances of the particular theme come under challenged material, and are subject to removal and the burden is on the contributor to adequately source to prevent this. (And where example material is in list form, it is preferable to render in prose.) If we can't write encyclopaedically on these pop culture uses then we shouldn't be including them. Some projects have a better grip on this than others. WP:Aviation, for instance, dealt with a lot of Transformers triva by banishment to the outer wastes GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber: Yes, I have been to a university library, and was also impressed by the volume of information available on all sorts of subjects. And I am not arguing against inclusion of that enormous volume of information here. Nor am I arguing against including lists of trivia because I "haven't heard of it or have not seen a source". It's fine if you don't agree with my position, but please don't misrepresent it. I have said repeatedly that my issue is not just the fact that the large majority of these trivia sections are unsourced. Even if ALL of it was sourced, it still wouldn't belong in most places for the same reason a section called "Hairpiece" wouldn't belong in Donald Trump, consisting of random references in popular culture to Donald Trump's hairpiece. (And it should never exist as a random list of disjointed factoids) WP:V is only one of our policies. Just because a piece of information has a reliable source that verifies it, does not automatically imply that it should be included in the article. Again, because I have been misrepresented so many times, I will reiterate: I am not saying that popular culture influences are not important, or that they shouldn't exist. What I am saying is that we should only have a section on culture influence for topics that have had a significant cultural influence (as evidenced by claims to that effect in reliable sources). ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is a very complex issue. First, citations from good sources are required, to keep out real trivia and advertising (Amazon is not a usable source itself). After that, I'd look case by case, and be slightly on the liberal side. For example: Dinosaur has a "Cultural impact" section; Food web may scope for a "Popular culture" section, as the song "Ilkley Moor Bar T'at" is an old, pre-scientic illustration of a food web; and I could probably find excellent examples at Dog (Greyfriars Bobby, Lassie, etc.), Ape (King Kong), etc., and even Spiders (e.g Robert_the_Bruce#Legends). --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my example are historical, but I have no prejudice against current examples, if supported by good sources independent of the creators (excludes advertisers). --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the retention / removal of cases should be reviewed by editors who have some knowledge and sympathy for the topic, to avoid a reviewer's prejudices (which we all have) influencing the outcome. --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an encyclopedia with infoboxes, categories, or talk pages; please remove those as well as the "pop culture" sections. I've never seen Family Guy, the Simpsons, or Norfolk, Nebraska in an encyclopedia, please delete those articles. Your arguments are on the same exact level as those I just gave, hope you can see that. Regardless of what people !vote here, your arguments suck. Anything other than "it doesnt exist in other encyclopedias" is needed. I think some people here just have bugs up their arses and if they dont like something being in articles then they should just not have them in the articles they write. Wholesale removal of information with no attempt to salvage the information and integrate it into the article and no research to source the information results in the sloppy work that was done, with Misery as the prime example of what can happen, per admission that it was "sloppy" work by the editor. We are, per our highest policies–a work in progress, your contributions need not be perfect, someone can fix them. What matters is that people, usually the newest people, are adding information of some sort and getting interested in Wikipedia, per WP:IAR. Clean-up their work, dont discourage them and remove it wholesale. I dont agree with the "notable persons" and "in popular culture" lists either, but when I clean them up I add the information, with a source, to the body of the work!!!!!! If you can't take time to do that, then DO NOT REMOVE THE INFORMATION!!!!! Fundamentally WP:PRESERVE. So you can state all you want that these lists are against policy, but per policy they are better than nothing and those adding the lists are actually doing more of a service through IAR in adding information than those who would remove information. Policy is NOT on your side in this arugment.Camelbinky (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky:

Regarding categories and talk pages: other encyclopedias do not have these because the print medium does not make it possible or useful. (However, many encyclopedias do have "infoboxes" of sorts -- i.e. floating sidebars of information.) The reason they do not have articles on Norfolk, VA is that they do not have the human resources to write articles on every subject imaginable, and thus can only write about a limited range of topics. I think this is one of the strongest points about Wikipedia -- that we can write professional-quality articles on things like Norfolk, VA and Pokemon, because we've got an enormously large number of editors and no publication deadline.

However, it is possible for them to include random lists of trivia in those articles that they do write - but they don't. The reason is that they are trying to write articles that broadly explain the topic to the reader in an effort to increase their understanding of the subject. They try to focus on those aspects of the subject that are most significant. In the case of Zombies, talking about their role in popular culture is extremely relevant, and sources have been specific written analyzing the Zombie film genre, it's history, etc. A popular culture section is highly warranted there. But how does a paragraph about Pokemon characters in the article Taoism, a 2500 year old religion with hundreds of scholarly works available on the subject, help the reader to understand the subject matter better? (I'm not saying that this information doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, but I don't think it belongs at Taoism. I think it belongs at Pokémon Black and White - assuming sources are found that feel it is relevant.)

You stated that "Anything other than 'it doesnt exist in other encyclopedias' is needed." Well, I provided plenty other than this. For example, it is also a violation of WP:DUE to include trivia lists in articles. Take my Diane Sawyer fashion example. Another example would be including a section called "Hair" in the article Celine Dion composed of a random assortment of quotes about her hair. Another example would be Jewish banker conspiracies. Why don't we have a list of those in the Israel article? I find it amazing that in all other cases, throughout the encyclopedia, we apply WP:DUE and remove information that is not relevant to a broad overview of the subject, yet we make a special exception for "In popular culture" sections. Articles are supposed to focus on those aspects of the topic that reliable sources deem important. Since reliable sources on Taoism, for example, almost never say anything about Pokemon, we should not mention them here. This is really, to me, the most important argument: I think we should apply WP:DUE to Transformers trivia just like we would with "Random Jewish banker comments" sections. We don't include random lists of information in articles, just because we can find sources for each of the items. WP:V is only one of our policies. We take other things into account, like: "Even though we have a source, should we be giving this piece of information weight in this article?" In many cases, the answer is no, even when we have a source.

Also, I do not agree with your statement that editors are "doing a service" by ignoring our rules and adding trivial information to articles without sources. I would agree with you if our goal was simply to aggregate a random assortment of as much information as possible. But our goal is to write a free, online, high-quality encyclopedia. Adding random lists of disjointed tangential TV-show references to articles is not conducive to this goal. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First- I said Norfolk, Nebraska, not Virginia as many encyclopedia's do indeed have an article on the very important city in Virginia, two different Norfolk's over 1,000 miles apart. Second- Random Jewish defamation is not in any way comparable to trivia, I once asked Jimbo how it was different that some could not state something in an article that would be considered a BLP violation even if sourced if said about one individual but if they said it about an entire race then it was ok, Jimbo if I recall correctly stated there was no difference and sourced or not such a violation is not ok, so there is why we dont have random Jewish anti-semitic trivia, has nothing to do with it being lists of trivia And frankly I find your analogy to be highly insultive. Third- READ OUR FREAKIN' POLICIES, I listed several that show that We are a work in progress, you're contributions need not be perfect and the very heart of WP:IAR. Adding information that is accurate is always a service. Someone can always come along and format it correctly. When you remove that information you are leaving it harder for those who want to clean-up and make these articles complete to know that the information is out there. Fourth- I SAID I AGREE THE LISTS SHOULD NOT EXIST. But if you want to clean them up, the burden is on YOU to FIRST fix the information, deleting it is a last resort only if it can not be cleaned-up. I know because I was a party to several such discussions on the meaning of WP:PRESERVE two years ago.Camelbinky (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may quote from WP:Preserve - "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." This is where Mesoderm differs in opinion from you - as to what facts or ideas or suitable. And this is not AfD, material removed still exists in the version history. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky: Try to tone it down with the screaming and "your arguments suck" comments. I have "read our freakin' policies", and don't feel that giving undue weight to trivia is in line with WP:NPOV, nor do I feel that lists of trivia are in line with WP:TRIVIA or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm glad you agree with me that lists of trivia are inappropriate. But that's only part of what I was saying. Even if you put a bunch of Pokemon and Star Wars references in paragraph form, and added references, I still don't think they belong in Taoism per WP:DUE. Also, nowhere did I say that I don't believe that Wikipedia is a work in progress, or that contributions don't need to be perfect. However, I do believe that adding lists of cartoon trivia to articles like Taoism is not progress, for the reasons I've described above, and saying that something doesn't need to be perfect isn't free license to include content that is terrible (unsourced, off-topic, disjointed, and/or irrelevant). My main points, which very few people opposing the change have actually responded to, are that (a) Popular culture sections should only exist for subjects that reliable sources claim have a significant cultural impact and (b) these sections should not just be disjointed lists of tangential pop-culture references, but rather should be in the form of prose that discusses what reliable sources say about their overall impact on culture. I'm just trying to gain feedback on my proposal before I file an RFC, so that I can understand what problems, if any, people see resulting from inserting this into policy. So please don't start screaming and telling me my "arguments suck" just because you don't agree with me, and try to focus instead on explaining what problems you see with the proposal I'm making, and how you would improve it. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mesoderm, and the proposed policy (or something similar) would be a welcome addition. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose to Mesoderm's overall opposition to "in popular culture" sections (cf. WP:NIME), any prescriptive measures against them (cf. WP:NOTPAPER, WP:CONSENSUS), and in particular his one-editor campaign of indiscriminately blowing them away wherever he finds them. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather sick of having opinions attributed to me when I do not hold them, so I'm going to place this in bold, since I've repeated it so many times: I am not opposed to popular culture sections. I am only opposed to including them in articles which have not had a significant impact on popular culture, and do not think these sections should be composed of disjointed lists of trivia. It is also false that I have "blown them away wherever I found them. As I've said before, I left the sections in several articles I came across, such as Samurai and Zombie , because of the myriad reliable sources that discuss their widespread impact on popular culture. See above for more on how I think this is different from the pop-culture sections in, say, Whole-body transplant. Please try to not use falsehoods and straw men to denigrate my arguments. Do you have a response to the actual proposal I am making (reasons why you oppose it, how you would change it, etc.) rather than to these straw men you have concocted? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down the screaming Mesoderm! Though I find those that say "screaming" about a written media tend to be childish, it is reading and if you raise your inner voice when reading bold or capital letters then that's your problem, I dont and those who tend to be of mature age (Gen-X and older) tend not to either. As for what "sucks" about your proposal we've already stated it!–it is not needed, it is instruction creep, it violates our policies, and you have a stick up your arse on what you dont like. And yes you are indiscriminately removing information without attempting to incorporate it into a "finished" article as required by policy, and it is required not optional. I had the optional part removed long ago. Quote policy all you want, but in the end there is nothing to justify your wholesale destruction of information and may find yourself brought to AN/I if an administrator finds it annoying enough, which I'm sure there are enough who already do and I encourage them to bring your actions before the Community to see if sanctions to stop you are forthcoming.Camelbinky (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go ahead and take me to ANI, if you feel that I've done something that is worthy of administrator intervention. I don't agree with you regarding your misinterpretations of policy, for the reasons I've laid out above (your need to cite IAR to justify your position is illuminating), but I am done responding to your comments: You are not addressing what I am proposing, are misrepresenting my positions, are being incivil for no apparent reason, and are unwilling to budge from your position regardless of what is said. I'm not concerned with whether you think "my arguments suck" or that I have a "stick up my arse" or that I am "childish", and will from here on out dedicate my efforts to talking with people that can provide more calm and reasoned criticism of what I am actually saying. Until you have something to say that actually addresses what I am saying, I will no longer respond to your posts. Bye. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be called a WP:SPADE, quit digging holes in the ground. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments I made to Camelbinky regarding misrepresentation, rudeness, and lack of any connection to the actual topic of this thread apply to your comments as well. I will no longer be responding to your posts either, unless you say something that actually addresses my proposed addition to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and what problems you see with it. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky: "I had the optional part removed long ago.". So you alone are making the policies? That seems a bit contrary to procedure, but it does make sense of your seemingly very passionate engagement here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One gaping hole in all of the policies is a little more guidance on relevancy/notability/usefulness/significance criteria for CONTENT which would kick in only where there is a dispute. The most common place this shows up is in wp:npov issues (i.e. a gaping hole in that policy) but this is another example. I actually ran into an example where I felt the pendulum had swung too far the other way at the USS Missouri article. (a friendly difference of views, not a dispute) That an overly strict project standard ruled out significant, notable, relevant material just because it was culture related. So a bit more guidance in this area would be helpful. Probably not a rule, just a "please take the following factors into consideration:" type thing might be best. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but there's an easy solution for all of this. Sourcing. I'd say that requiring a source for every trivia, culture, famous people lists, or whatever woudl be over the top, but... if there's a question about whether or not specific items should be excluded then just find a source or two that mention the point. Seems like an easy solution, to me (even if abiding by that requires a bit of work and study. Horrors!).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as I've pointed out several times, WP:V is only one of our policies. Just because you can find a reliable source that verifies a particular statement does not automatically imply that that statement should be in an article. For instance, I could find dozens of reliable sources commenting on Donald Trump's hairpiece, but that doesn't mean that we should include it in his article just because there is a source. We also have to take other policies and guidelines (including [[WP:DUE] and WP:INDISCRIMINATE) into consideration. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I guess that I just don't see a need to legislate this any more than is already done. I mean... people have a tendency to come here (or to talk pages, or policy pages) and rather severely over-think these things. There's a "feel" to these sorts of lists and content, you know? How much is appropriate is relative to several issues (the amount of other content, the relative importance of the topic, things like that), which makes attempts to delineate of exactly how many items to cover in all cases basically impossible.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a very good point that I forgot to address: i.e. Yes, it's clear to most people that our current policies do not support the inclusion of random trivia. So why another rule? Why not just enforce the current rules?

The reason we add things into policies and guidelines is to express the WP:CONSENSUS regarding what to do in situations that frequently arise here. When arguments come up repeatedly over something (such as improperly quoting song lyrics or adding information without citing a source), we often write something into a policy or guideline that gives guidance on how we should generally deal with the situation, and why. Often these things are clear to most people. For those that cannot grasp the apparent consensus laid out in the current policies, we need to make the message more explicit: "No. An assortment of trivial Captain America and South Park references do not belong in the article for New York City". Then we just point to this guideline instead of having to repeat the same arguments over and over again ourselves.

"In popular culture" sections composed of lists of (often unsourced) trivial and irrelevant information are extremely common. I think it is a serious problem. Some people don't think that lists of random trivia are a problem, as long as they have sources for each bit of trivia. I think they misunderstand that this is an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information and that we shouldn't give undue weight to irrelevant information like trivial anime episode references. I don't understand how they can't see this; but for whatever reason, they don't, and so I have to explain it to them.

I shouldn't have to waste time explaining to people why we shouldn't be talking about Pokemon in the article Taoism (although maybe Taoism in anime would be a good place for the information), but right now I do. Such a large majority of people agree that random lists of trivia are not encyclopedic and are a serious and widespread problem here, that I'd like to make it explicit in WP:INDISCRIMINATE that these sorts of things are not desirable here. Instead of having to spend an hour arguing with someone about why a Captain America movie reference doesn't belong in the article for United States history, I can just say "See WP:INDISCRIMINATE", and go back to writing an encyclopedia article.

I agree with you that rule-creep is an issue, and that policy should not be added frivolously. But this is a problem affecting thousands of articles, and which takes up a lot of community time and causes a lot of unnecessary conflict. I think that it is worth dealing with through a policy or guideline, so we waste less time over it. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Comment - Popular culture is a significant topic in its own right and we are an encyclopedia about the real world, not an ivory tower. Sometimes the effect and relation of a thing to popular culture is relevant to the subject of an article, sometimes not. Sometimes popular culture sections are encyclopedically written and sourced, other times not. For example, Tom Lehrer sang a notable song, The Elements (song), about the Periodic Table, but that is too trivial in weight and faraway in relevance to add to our article about the basic building blocks of the universe. On the other hand, the popular culture section in Santa Claus is relevant to what Santa Claus means, because he is largely a historical pop culture phenomenon. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of at a loss for words. I've stated over and over again that I am not opposed to popular culture sections. I've even placed it in bold text so that people couldn't miss it (although I don't know how they would have gotten the idea that I wanted to remove all pop culture sections if they had actually read my proposal). Yet this assertion keeps coming up over and over and over again. What could I possibly say that would motivate people to focus on my actual proposal rather than this oft-repeated straw man? I have already stated repeatedly that I and my proposal here support the inclusion of "Cultural influence" or "In popular culture" sections for articles like Samurai or Zombie (or your Santa Claus example, which is equally apt) that have reliable sources which cover their cultural impact. Please go and take another look at what I am actually proposing.

You stated that sometimes popular culture sections are encyclopedically sourced, sometimes not. I am saying that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we should remove those sections which cannot be encyclopedically sourced. I understand that some people like trivia. But this is not a trivia project. (Although I would fully support the creation of an official WikiTrivia project). Some people like dirty jokes. But we don't include those either, even if we can find a source for them, because Wikipedia is not a joke book. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should only include information that can be encyclopedically sourced. However a very large number of topics, such as Santa Claus, CAN be encyclopedically sourced, and should be. But again, because I've been misrepresented so many times in this arena as well: my issue is NOT with the availability of sources to verify individual pieces of trivia. My issue is with whether topics that do not have anything written about their cultural impact should have a section devoted to their cultural impact. I do not think they should.

Wikidemon -- I think that you are mostly in agreement with me, judging by your examples (i.e. that Periodic Table shouldn't include the aforementioned trivia, while Santa Claus should have a Cultural Impact section because of his enormous impact on popular culture). My proposal would have precisely this effect of removing said trivia from the Periodic table article while promoting the inclusion of a high-quality "Cultural significance" section in Santa Claus. Please do me the favor of actually reading over what I am proposing. I think you'll find that, although it could use some work, that it is precisely what you are suggesting with your examples, and that it would greatly improve the quality of an enormous number of our articles, which currently contain large chunks of sometimes sourced, but irrelevant and trivial, references to pop culture rather than analyzing the cultural impact of the article topic. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to a "comment" for now, and think your proposal merits more consideration than I can give it. Certainly, random lists of disjointed material, of the sort that might be called "trivia" on a site like IMDB. From "fight club": In the short scene when Brad Pitt and Edward Norton are drunk and hitting golf balls, they really are drunk, and the golf balls are sailing directly into the side of the catering truck. That sort of thing amuses some people but so what? Even if we wanted to, Wikipedia isn't an efficient or useful place to collect those things or any indiscriminate list. That's not how we're built, what we're here for, or what the reader needs to know. We do have to be careful when removing stuff just because it's in trivia form, because some of that stuff truly is relevant. For example, the following piece of "trivia", also from IMDB, says something that may be be fairly significant to the film: Author Chuck Palahniuk has stated that he found the film to be an improvement on his novel. If that relevant and significant fact happened to be mixed in with a randomly ordered bullet point list it ought to be worked into the prose, any citations found or improved, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting ideas in the proposal, some good, some bad. ¶ The only time an article warrants the inclusion of an "In popular culture" section is when reliable sources exist which describe the overall impact that the subject has had on popular culture (or some important subset of pop-culture such as film, literature, etc.). Either I don't understand, or I don't agree. First, I don't see any reason to separate "popular" culture -- meaning recent culture from the infotainment industry? -- from any other culture. Secondly, if, in an extreme case, the subject of the article verifiably had an interesting echo (one about which people have been able to write) on just a single television program (or novel, or game, or album, or whatever), then I see no reason why a the lack of any impact elsewhere should rule out a description of this one particular echo. ¶ Let's look at the part that's been boldified above: I am not opposed to popular culture sections. I am only opposed to including them in articles [on subjects] which have not had a significant impact on popular culture, and do not think these sections should be composed of disjointed lists of trivia. W H Mallock has I think had no effect on recent popular or other culture other than via Tom Phillips (for artistic and also musical ends); but if his works were also to be picked up as punching bags by Julian Baggini or some other two-fisted atheist (i.e. in a way irrelevant to art, music or Phillips), they would still have little impact on culture (popular or otherwise) over the last eighty years -- and yet I think a section on "Later appearances of Mallock" would be justified. ¶ I too used to say that lists of appearances in popular culture appeared in no printed encyclopedia and therefore did not befit this one. This argument is poor, in that WP is fundamentally different from any printed encyclopedia -- as we know very well. ¶ The argument against including lists of appearances in popular culture (even when sourced) is that such lists generally tell us next to nothing about the ostensible subject of the article. ¶ There are also miscellaneous absurdities. For example, we have "Mermaids in popular culture". Its content isn't all bad. (The snippet on Zemlinsky's symphonic poem Die Seejungfrau is my own contribution.) But mermaids in popular culture as opposed to where? They've never had any physical existence; the mermaid is a cultural artifact, no more. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - with the limited scope as originally proposed for discussion. Mesoderm has made it clear this is a good faith attempt to gather input to make a planned RFC high quality in it's initial argument, which seems to me to be the essence of good faith. I'm surprised at the lack of flexibility in re-considering ideas that have been previously discussed, especially in not listening to his repeated attempts to refocus the discussion on his original point. His proposal may not be perfect, but he knew that when he made it - and basically, I believe he's right in that the project is becoming less an encyclopeia and more a blog. There is increasingly too much crap that is tolerated for too long. Kilmer-san (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Content in thousands of articles is at risk here for insignificant benefit. This is pernicious WP:CREEP. As editors and policy writers we are constrained by the content of the encyclopedia as it was created under policies which editors conformed to at the time of their creation and expansion in good faith. It is an intellectual betrayal to their effort to delete this material. It is vandalism and unencylopedic. The work to be done here is to attempt to organize it and to cite it better. patsw (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think this is already pretty well-covered at WP:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. I don't really think everything needs re-debating, we just need help cleaning up articles that have gotten a bit crufty. In general, I use the rule-of-thumb of checking for sources. The vast majority of trivia lists don't have sources, so they're easy to thin out. But if there's a reliable source explaining why a particular piece of trivia is culturally significant, then I leave it in. That takes care of 95% of the problems. Or to put it another way: Are there particular articles where the existing guidelines are insufficient? If so, they can usually be handled on a case-by-case basis. --Elonka 01:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose what Mesoderm has been doing purely because, from the examples I saw, he wasn't doing it carefully enough. I only cited one example above but I reverted, or partially reverted, some others - as far as I could tell, he was simply blindly removing any section which contained "in popular culture" whether it contained useful information or not.[2] As for the general idea, I agree that lists of indiscriminate links under whatever section heading are a bad idea, but where there are justifiable reasons for including some links ([3] might be an example), we should first consider whether some rewriting might be required instead of equally indiscriminate removal. Stephenb (Talk) 09:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose every topic should have this considered on its merits with no policy or guidelines restricting what is put in, and local consensus on each article can determine if the content is suitable. Any article could have a cultural impact section if there are sources which cover it and it adds value to the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - noting very carefully that what Elonka says above is simply re-iterating what I said high up at the beginning of all this - its all been through before - and both Elonka and Stephenb and Graeme Bartlett bring up salient issues - case by case is far more effective SatuSuro 10:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think its worth considering how the inclusion of the marginally relevant pop culture information that the OP objects to affects our public image. I think its important to remember that many people feel that an encyclopedia relying on user generated content is inherently unreliable. Using the example of information about pokemon in the Taoism article, if a wikipedia skeptic were to see that, their opinions about wikipedia would likely be reinforced, specifically, that anyone can come here and post whatever they want, with no editorial oversight. I have been continually bothered how this issue has seemingly never entered into any discussion on standards for inclusion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We should not be changing articles or making policy in order to convince people that Wikipedia is a reliable source, because the people that consider an encyclopedia based on used generated content to be unreliable are right. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as our own sourcing guidelines indicate. Wikipedia is an open wiki and so can never be considered reliable, and we should be discouraging people from treating it as reliable, to say nothing of actively trying to convince them to. Wikipedia is where you go for a summary of what reliable sources say and references that enable you to find those reliable sources, and if trivia sections help people recognize this, then they're doing a public service. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that we are, in most cases, just as reliable as a print encyclopedia (Reliable in a colloquial sense, not according to WP:RS. The main exceptions occur in areas not well covered by print encyclopedias). When I talk about people thinking we are unreliable, I'm talking about arguments such as "since anyone can edit wikipedia don't believe a word of it" as opposed to wikipedia is a tertiary source, so it should not be used as a source for a research paper. I agree with the latter view entirely. I feel that in the scenario you suggest, where a casual reader of the encyclopedia comes across an "in popular culture" section, and decides to take everything they read with a grain of salt, to be somewhat unrealistic. I think its more likely that they'd stop reading, and never come to wikipedia again. I do think its important to inform readers of our limitations, but I think that the manner that you suggest could easily backfire. That's why we have the disclaimers. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Casey Anthony that could use some outside opinions on whether a separate article should be created from Death of Caylee Anthony. Angryapathy (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that article be renamed Casey Anthony trial. I have stated my reasons at that article's talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire topic should be in one article, unless it is too long and needs to be WP:SPLIT, but don't create redundancies where its not necessary. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what are you doing guys when a newbie constantly modifies a page and doesn't use the Preview button, even if warned with {{uw-preview}}? --Gikü (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how many established editors, even admins, do it....I imagine almost noone cares, despite how annoying it is to some of us. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile devices make previewing less likely also. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this newbie's lack of previewing being unnecessarily disruptive? Even in that case, maybe a friendly explanation of why using the preview button is a good idea will make more of a difference than slapping templates on her/his Talk page. And the Recent Changes List has been flooded with edits for years, many years. One newbie taking ten or more edits to get a revision right is not going to break Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes (many times?) no matter how often I use the preview, that one glaring typo just creeps in. You know, the one that you notice just after you've hit the "Save Page" button? It happens to all of us, some days more than others. If it's not actually disruptive, be lenient. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also using preview is of no help in spotting errors in cites, because preview doesn't show you the references section unless you edit the whole article rather than by section, which is undesirable for all sorts of other reasons. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you can always just insert {{reflist}}, preview, and then remove it before the final save. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not the only one who uses the temporary reflist template? I'm not so special after all. :( But then again, sometimes I hit "submit" before I remember to remove that template, and then have to make a second edit to remove it, defeating the purpose. Meh. -- Atama頭 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a policy issue and WP:BEANS says it's better not to mention it. The "Please note:" section says "When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead." Maybe something like "Consider previewing and proofreading you text before saving" could be added. I do worry about people who make hundreds of edits a day. Quality writing is hard to do and research takes time even if you're familiar with the subject, so it's difficult to see how people can do either in a non-stop typing session.--RDBury (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy creep - sometimes editors make mistakes while editing, and not all edits are perfect on the first glance. After all, we editors should go ahead and improve the encyclopedia anyways, and sometimes fixing typos that one notices after the fact is not really disruptive per se. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question is how to verify associations, degrees and awards of a living person? Would they scan information such as this that could be uploaded to an archive site as the reference link? Thanks. -- Suzwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzwriter (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is the job of people like journalists. Wikipedia isn't designed for that sort of original research. What you need to find is not a person's college degrees, you need to find a reliable source where someone else has gone through the trouble of vetting their college degrees. You know, like books, magazine articles, newspaper articles, that sort of thing. --Jayron32 04:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the person having the information on their own site... beyond just saying 'i have a master's degree from University of X', actually having documentation from said 'University' would be a step in the direction - but is still a 'primary source'. Really what you want is the organization in question to substantiate the degree, award, etc.Cander0000 (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is wrong on the point of WP:OR, it does not mean that you cant do research on your own and find new documentation, it means that you shouldnt come to your own conclusions and take x and y and come up with z. A primary source can and should be used it adds relevant information to make an article more complete. In the end- IAR justifies using a primary source if it makes the article more complete and accurate. Especially if a primary source shows a secondary source to be outright wrong, eg- someone says they have masters degree in x from y university but the university has documentation showing that the person actually only has a bachelor's in z, such "research" causes a big change in how we present our article from being "So-and-so has a masters in x from y" to being worded as "The NY Times claims so-and-so has a masters in x from y, but y university has documentation that so-and-so only has a bachelors in z from their university". That's a big difference and completely legitimate. When writting an article you should ALWAYS do thorough RESEARCH of all available sources where you can find them to find accurate and complete knowledge.Camelbinky (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College degrees are not publications. --Jayron32 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jayron32 is right. Basing article content on unpublished primary sources definitely constitutes WP:OR, and is likely to produce erroneous results if not done by the knowledgeable. If the university publishes a statement that 'X' has a degree in 'Y', it can of course be cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not seeing it. Degree conferrals are public information in that anyone can communicate with the granting institution and verify whether so-and-so received a degree in X year, yes? That has a strong smell of WP:V to it, to me. I don't think there's any need to excessively fetishize print publication. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. It is primary information but there is no requirement for anything to be in a book or newspaper. This is like a sign in a museum which is similarly okay but even less accessible to most people. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you've never worked in Human Resources or journalism, have you? Finding out whether somebody really has a degree in X from school Y can be like pulling teeth; and definitely falls in the category of original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the sentence or paragraph in WP:OR that says this falls under it... I dont see it. You totally dont get the idea of or meaning behind it. And pulling teeth? Funny because every university puts out the names of its graduating class every single year, not that hard to find it if you go to the university library. In fact I just googled my name and the university I attended and bam, there's several sources proving that I at least attended the school and if I went through each one I'm sure I could find one that mentioned my graduation. There was a weatherman from CBS6 in Schenectady, NY who claimed to be a meteorologist, well the the JOURNALISTS at his own station got suspicious after about a year and did some digging and discovered he never graduated from ANY college and was not a meteorologist, he was fired of course. So I dont buy your claim that it is that hard to discover if someone graduated from anywhere.Camelbinky (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, by your own anecdote, we shouldn't simply take the subjects word on this & should wait for a third party source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual for us to cite the subject himself on such non-contentious points. Many BLPs have posted a résumé containing such information online, and you can cite it directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that would be if the accuracy is disputed, it's not uncommon for someone to claim a degree that they don't really have. WP:SELFPUB covers how we use self-published information as a source for the subject, and either item 1 or 4 might apply in such a situation to demand a third-party source. -- Atama頭 00:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery could be the identification in a Wikipedia article of a reliable source reporting the conferral of a degree. That's a good thing. Saying "I found it in Google" (i.e. "discovery") and adding it to an article without a citation to a RS is original research. Discoveries have to be verifiable. I also dispute that colleges are obligated to disclose on demand to anyone who got what degree when. patsw (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I dont follow and I dont think Patsw was following anything when commenting. First- no one ever says "I found it in Google", Google is a search engine, you FIND sources through Google or Google books then cite the source, you dont cite Google even though Google helped you find the information. Second- No one as far as I can tell ever said colleges are obligated to disclose anything, but they do happen to put out pamphlets, booklets, lists, etc in different formats that are out there on every graduating class, the information exists, is accessible at least at the university library if not online or elsewhere. And since WP:V says something must be verifiABLE it doesnt have to be accessible to EVERYONE EVERYWHERE at a moment's notice for free. As long as SOMEONE is able to access it and verify it, it does not matter if it is one booklet in one library that you must be a student to acceess. And if you disagree with THAT you can take it to the WP:V talk page, the WP:OR/N, and WP:RS/N and all three can tell you what has been said in numerous discussions numerous times.Camelbinky (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree there's a difference between the informal assertion of a discovery and citing a verifiable source into an article. patsw (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... I guess but that has nothing to do with this discussion and no one ever was talking about anything like that. Unless of course you are talking about my informal assertion of discovering on Google that you can verify I at least attended my university. In that case NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I will not be citing a verifiable source as that would be outing myself and I sure hope you arent implying that a talk page comment needs to be cited with a verifiable source or else that user's comment is invalid, because that would be not only ridiculous but also rude.Camelbinky (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent consensus to limit new article creation to autoconfirmed users, a discussion is taking place on a sub page here to determine the duration of the required trial. It is emphasised that the current discussion is only about the duration and not about the technical implementation or system of post-trial evaluation - they will be discussed on separate pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was added on May 11 2011 to Wikipedia:Biography of living persons

Particular care should be exercised when the only source that can be found for the material is tabloid journalism.

I recently added on the discussion page:

For the purpose of this policy how is tabloid journalism defined?

I bring it to the community's attention here because the question remains unanswered. patsw (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've gotten an answer on that talk page, from several people. As they wrote, "journalism with a reputation for sensationalism". That certainly leaves room for debate in specific cases, but most definitions do.--GRuban (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the strength of that comment is in its vagueness and its encouragement of discussion in individual situations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this policy would do a world of difference to be changed for these reasons:

1. Research. It would be easier to conduct research for gendered history if they are separated into gendered categories. And people do conduct gendered history research. When they are scattered around in different areas, research is less simplified.
2. Future use. Younger people of other genders will be able to see the accomplishments of potential role models of their own gender.

I am someone who researches a lot, I do it not only for a past time, but I use it in my work life too. I know what makes research easier. Sometimes creating more categories does make research easier, because more specific, popular categories lend to this categorizing. There is possibility of over-categorization on Wikipedia, but I feel that gendered categories will not lend itself to that. This is solely about creating databases for gendered research and not about race, sexism, or any other topic out of subject that might come up. I might also suggest that there be some sort of reform to the policy for historic purposes, or modify it in some way--not do away with the policy completely. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about what categories, or kinds of categories, you'd like to see? Maybe with a few examples? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category: African American women
• Category: Hispanic and Latino American women

These are American-centered categories, but this is simply due to my being American myself, not because I believe only American subgroups should be recognized (or that those of any type of European descent should not be recognized). These were only two I actually created and worked on before I was told that these types of categories were against Wikipedia policy. As someone who is very enthusiastic about women's history, and does research in it quite often, I felt like Wikipedia should have adequate ways to easily look up women in these ethnic categories. There are other people who agree with me on this, but due to canvassing policy I am not informing them of this discussion. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of this category? Is it helpful? Category:Women by nationality USchick (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I find that extremely helpful! So I'm still a little unclear why the categories I created would then be up for deletion if categories like those you posted are allowed to exist. If it's considered useful categorize women by nationality, why is it not useful to categorize women by descent or ethnicity? --Shakesomeaction (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Cat gender contains the unhelpful guideline 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. Since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences disagrees about the need for separating actors and actresses, as do other professional performing arts bodies that present awards separately to actors and actresses such as the Tony Awards, it's unclear to me why the first part of the statement is valid. It seems to me that if you can present multiple works of scholarship that deal with "African American women" as a topic of historical or scholarly inquiry (my search is limited to "university" publishers), you have verified a topic of special encyclopedic interest. It may, however, raise questions under WP:DIFFUSE and require subcategories. Has it not been that simple for you? Or have (ahem) behaviors perhaps unduly roiled the waters? I've seen a bit of flailing about by both sides on this elsewhere. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of explanation was not given at any point by any person, and it probably would have prevented a lot of headache if it would have been given. This helps me a lot. Perhaps the WP:Cat gender should be reworded, because at this point it's a bit confusing for people to understand in that context. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Women by nationality" can be determined either by birth or by citizenship. Race categories are discouraged on Wikipedia because they can not be determined and can not be referenced by reliable sources. In the US, race is a voluntary declaration by the individual, there is no official document, no proof, and most people are multiracial. See American golfer Tiger Woods – half Asian (one-quarter Chinese and one-quarter Thai), one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch. He refers to his ethnic make-up as “Cablinasian” (a syllabic abbreviation he coined from Caucasian, Black, (American) Indian, and Asian). To complicate matters even more, why is Charlize Theron not considered African American? She was born in Africa and is now an American. Yet, dark skinned Americans who haven't been in Africa for many generations are African Americans. See Category talk:African-American people #4 Blacks only? (section). USchick (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may very well be right about these issues, but the topic at hand here is about creating categories for women (or creating gendered categories). Considering that people are already separated by ethnicity, all that would be done is place the women into the women category. The only issue that could possibly come up is if the person is transgender or intersex, and in that case one would categorize in the gender as the person identifies. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the kinds of thorny questions that do arise. For historical women, scholarship should verify whether the subject has been treated as an aspect of the encyclopedic topic "African American women." This may sound like splitting hairs, but there's a difference between a WP editor inferring that a subject should be placed in a category, and having a body of scholarship that treats a particular woman as a subject of African American women's history. One of the things I object to with categories is placing a subject in a category when the article doesn't explain why (Cicero is categorized as a Trope theorist, perhaps correctly, but the word "trope" isn't used in the article, and there isn't even an article on trope theory); if the categorization isn't verifiable by citations in the article, this strikes me as OR or synth. But if the identification has been made within the article by means of sufficient RS, I don't see the problem with this kind of categorization. I recognize there's already been a lot of discussion on this in general elsewhere, but I'm not sure where, and apologize if I'm covering old ground. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term African American was coined by Malcom X, who used it to encourage black Americans to be proud of their heritage. That is generally a term reserved for black people. To me that's a nonissue. Also, I don't think this is just about African American women, it's about any women of any culture being recognized.... Due to pickiness of some editors, people have resorted to making pages with lists of women because people will simply not recognize their historical significance. I don't know any of the arguments that have been brought up, so nothing is old ground for me. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USchick, I completely disagree with your claim that race "can not be referenced by reliable sources". We have done so in thousands of articles. While it's true that we can't prove that any individual is a True™ <racial label>, we mostly certainly can and do report that they are verifiably <whatever racial label the reliable sources use>. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't like categories which have more than one criterion for membership. I know Wikipedia doesn't do this at present but I'd much prefer that one be able to specify logical conditions on category inclusion like in a database. That way we don't get people setting up arbitrary numbers of intersections of attributes like sex and nationality and profession and whatever else strikes peoples fancy. The current way of doing things just doesn't work properly. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my point is only that "African American women" is, per WP:Cat gender, a topic of special encyclopedic interest, as demonstrated by these search results, so I'm unclear why the category doesn't meet the criteria. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be to me that people keep confusing this as a race issue, as the conversation quickly went that way above. And that's where people get mixed up about criteria. A gentle reminder (although I admit I have not been all that gentle in my past) that this is simply about recognizing a group for historical significance can be made. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that needs to be made absolutely clear: we NEVER categorise individual people by 'race'. (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). We allow categorisation by ethnicity, but that isn't the same thing. If people don't understand the difference, they should keep away from the topic entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:African-American people. If a woman's notability is based in part on her importance as a figure specifically in African American women's history, as indicated by RS (examples again) cited within the article, I'm not seeing how the categorization wouldn't conform to WP:Cat gender as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. It may be the case, however, that it's a category to be populated only by subcategories such as "19th-century African American women". There's something about the reasoning I'm not following. Cynwolfe (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I created Category:African American women, I discovered many "first African American woman to..." I think these are all notable, and some of them were the first African American in general to reach whatever accomplishment. While I did put all African American women in the category, I believe paring it down to these women of historical significance would make sense. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps it's appropriate to adjusting the category name to include "first." USchick (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is not all of these notable women are notable for being a first, unless someone could propose a category for them. Maybe "notable" could be used... Although that is very subjective. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any Wikipedia category of 'X persons' only includes 'notable X persons' as a matter of policy. If a person doesn't meet the general Wikipedia notability criteria, they shouldn't be included. On that basis, we don't use the word 'notable' in criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual thing to do is to give the cat a relatively plain name, and then write a description on the cat page that tells people what kinds of articles ought to be listed. So you could have "20th century African-American women", and then recommend listing people who were notable because they were African-American women, rather than people who were notable for some other reason and "just happened" to be women of that ethnicity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For women in history we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History. Creating a category for one race from one country is something we do in America, but it falls apart very quickly outside the US. What about "first" black people from France, like Surya Bonaly? Or "first" ethnic minority from Yemen? USchick (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If those groups are the subjects of substantial scholarly research, like African-American women are, then we could easily have such categories. If they aren't, then we won't. Just because women of a particular ethnicity in one country are a notable group doesn't mean that women of every single ethnicity in every single country have to be given matching categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WhatamIdoing. We already have Category:African-American people (which has a great number of subcategories); Shakesomeaction wants Category:African American women. The issue is therefore gender, not the label "African-American," which is already used in a great number of categories. Nobody's addressed my point of policy in reference to the wording of WP:Cat gender, which makes exceptions for creating gender categories when gender constitutes a topic of special encyclopedic interest. These search results indicate that university presses regularly publish books on African American women's history; how are you then defining "a topic of special encyclopedic interest" to exclude "African American women's history"? The point is that the category "African American women" is too diffuse; its existence is supported by the language of WP:Cat gender, but the question is whether it should be populated only by subcategories, which I believe Shakesomeaction was trying to say made sense to her/him. If you think no categories with the label "African American" should exist, that's a different argument, and you have a lot of categories to delete. I'm not arguing in support of "African American" categories; I'm saying that if they exist, "African American women" is permissible under WP:Cat gender as "a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Cynwolfe (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about scholarly research on minority groups and the importance of including the contribution of all people in history. WhatamIdoing said this category would include: "people who were notable because they were African-American women, rather than people who were notable for some other reason." What would be an example? When is someone notable because of their race instead of their accomplishment? USchick (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first African-American woman to become a licensed physician. The first African-American woman to be appointed as a tenured professor at a "white" university. The first African-American woman to be admitted to the bar. Most doctors, professors, and lawyers aren't notable. These women would have been notable because of their ethnicity and gender, and would very likely not be notable if they had been white men with the same accomplishments. As an example, there's not really anything remarkable about Rebecca Lee Crumpler's career as a physician, except that she was the first African-American woman to earn an MD, and she did so at a time when the vast majority of women (of any race) and nearly all African-Americans had little hope of attending high school, much less university and medical school.

Not all cats are restricted this tightly; it would not be unusual to include also iconic figures that are both notable for their identity and for their other accomplishments. For example, US Senators are always notable anyway, but it would not be unreasonable to include the first (and so far, only) African-American woman senator in such a category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my point is that if "African American" categories exist, I'm not understanding why a properly subcategoried "African American women" isn't supported by WP:Cat gender as "a topic of special encyclopedic interest." As far as I know, the other African American categories weren't recently targeted for deletion; therefore, the policy issue is gender, not "race." What I was agreeing with was WhatamIdoing's explanation that not all groups as described in terms of gender/race/ethnicity would be the subjects of extensive and specialized scholarship, so that (sorry to repeat myself) the question is whether the subject at hand is "a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is exactly what I'm trying to say. You have put it better than I did--I get frustrated very easily at the subject. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm torn on this issue. The fact that editors think this category is necessary is very important and should be respected. For that reason alone, if the users need to have it, it should be available as a tool. On the other hand, we NEVER categorise individual people by 'race'... except Americans. Are we making rules that only apply to Americans? Again? This is why the rest of the world hates us. USchick (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, African-American is not a "race". It is an "ethnicity". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this.... There are black people from other areas who are not African American. A person chooses to identify as African American, and African American is only a ethnic identity in the United States, much like Native American. I don't consider it changing the rules for Americans. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was assuming that within the context of American history and culture, "African American" had been construed on Wikipedia as an "ethnic" category. Therefore, "race" has nothing to do with this. So if "African American" is a valid way to construct a category (again, see all the African-American subcategories), the question is whether "African American women" meets the gender exception for "a topic of special encyclopedic interest," based on the existence of scholarship that deals specifically with "African American women's history." I'm not arguing for the necessity of the category, only that the current language of WP:Cat gender allows its existence, as far as I'm able to understand what's meant by that phrase. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are excellent points to include in the description for the category. USchick (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended consequences: Category:African American women will be separated from Category:African American people as though women are not people. Not at all a minor detail, considering how long women had to fight for inclusion. USchick (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression Category:African American women would be a subcategory of Category:African-American people. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! And what's the next step? Once you create a category for men, what will be left under people? Labeling and separating women from the rest of the population is a very dangerous slippery slope. Proceed with caution and at your own risk. USchick (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that USchick raises a very important point. There may be sound reasons to create a category, but it can have negative consequences. Regardless of policy, people are likely to take this as a precedent. If African-American women merit a category, do Irish-American women? Though you can argue that the latter category isn't as notable, how do you decide where to draw the line? And what if someone objects to being classified by gender, rather than on the basis of whatever they derive their notability from? (we have a classic example of this type of problem in regard to the List of Jewish Nobel laureates article - Richard Feynmann is on record as insisting his Jewish ethnicity is nothing to do with his Nobel Prize, and he objected strongly to being included in a book about Jewish Nobel winners - but he is still included on the list). It is precisely these issues, plus the way such categories tend to be abused for point-scoring (like attempts to include Jared Loughner in our List of Atheists) that have led me to the conclusion that we'd be better off without categories for people alltogether. We can of course have articles about such things, where the topic can be discussed properly, without attempting to shoehorn people into questionable categories that often encourage stereotyping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never noticed a man being recognized for being the "first male" to reach a certain achievement or recognized just because they were men. So in that area, I can't imagine having a conflict. I also agree of course with the man you mentioned his ethnicity had nothing to do with his receiving the Nobel Prize, but the fact remains that he is of Jewish ethnicity and has won a Nobel Prize (although it's my belief that publishers should respect his wishes of not publishing his name). I would think that if there is any ethnic group that has any historical significance that is documented like African American women this discussion would apply. At least that is my view. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a wide variety of surname clarification templates for use where the subject has a non-English-style name. These messages appear as a hatnote above the article and look like this (for example): Template:Dutch name Template:Chinese name In my opinion this is a completely unnecessary message and only takes up space, distracting from the lead and presenting a slightly aggressive tone to the reader. If the family name is not obvious from the name alone, it will be immediately obvious within the first few sentences and throughout the rest of the article, because that is how we will address the subject. I don't understand, then, what these messages do.

I saw such a message at Salva Kiir Mayardit, who is referred to as "Kiir". I tried placing it in a footnote but it was reverted because (apparently) it was inconsistent with the templates. I think a footnote is a much more reasonable location for this kind of message. The lead is for the most critical biographical details, and an explanation of the subject's name order is trivia at best. Non-English name formats don't require what appear to be warning messages to the reader. —Designate (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]